On November 10, 2015, Melton amended his complaint. He addedDesiree Hall as a plaintifff and converted the suit into a classaction. Melton and Hall sued Account Resolution under 15 U.S.C.sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692i(a)(2).

Account Resolution moved for judgment on the pleadings seeking todismiss all claims brought by Hall.

Judge Reeves found that Hall's suit is barred by the statute oflimitations. The judge explained that plaintiffs suing under theFDCPA must do so within one year of when the defendant violatedthe Act. Judge Reeves pointed out that Account Resolution filedits collection lawsuit against Hall on October 2, 2014, whichmeans that Hall had to sue Account Resolution by October 2, 2015.Hall, however, did not do so until she was added as a plaintiff onNovember 10, 2015.

A full-text copy of Judge Reeves's November 21, 2016 memorandumopinion and order is available at https://is.gd/YfRbne fromLeagle.com.

To all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquiredshares of the publicly traded common stock of Advanced MicroDevices, Inc. during the period from April 4, 2011 through October18, 2012, inclusive.

You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against AdvancedMicro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") and Individual Defendants Rory P.Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Richard A. Bergman, and Dr. Lisa T. Su(collectively "Defendants"). The Court authorized this notice, isallowing the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of aClass, and appointed attorneys as Class Counsel. The Court hasnot decided that Defendants did anything wrong. Defendants havenot been ordered to pay any money. No settlement has beenreached. There is no money available now and no guarantee thatthere will be in the future.

The lawsuit claims that investors suffered losses resulting fromallegedly materially false and misleading statements Defendantsmade about the manufacturing and subsequent launch of, as well asthe demand for, AMD's Llano microprocessor between April 4, 2011and October 18, 2012, allegedly in violation of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934. Defendants deny any wrongdoing in thislawsuit and believe that the claims are without merit.

You are a potential Class Member only if you purchased orotherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock ofAMD during the period from April 4, 2011 through October 18, 2012,inclusive. Excluded from the Class are AMD and the IndividualDefendants; members of the immediate families of the IndividualDefendants; AMD's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who wasan officer or director of AMD or any of AMD's subsidiaries oraffiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which anyDefendant has a controlling interest; AMD's employee retirementand benefit plan(s); and the legal representatives, heirs,successors and assigns of any such excluded person or entity.Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that timelyand validly requests exclusion from the Class. In addition,Defendants have reserved their rights to move tode-certify the Class, in whole or in part, or to seek theexclusion from the Class of certain entities or individuals at alater date.

If you want to stay in the Class, you do not have to do anythingnow. If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class, be bound bythe Court's orders, and will lose any right you may have to sueDefendants over the claims in this case. You must excludeyourself if you do not want to be a Class Member or to be bound bywhat the Court does and want to keep any rights you may have tosue Defendants over the claims in this case. To be excluded, youmust send a letter to Epiq Systems, Inc. at P.O. Box 4349,Portland, OR 97208-4349, and must include certain information, asset forth in the long-form notice available at the website listedbelow. If excluded, you cannot get money or benefits recovered ifany are awarded. The deadline to exclude yourself isJanuary 19, 2017.

This notice is only a summary. For more information visitwww.AMDSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-844-855-8569.

On July 8, 2015, the named Plaintiff, Stewart Abramson, filed hisclass action Complaint against Alpha Gas. According to theComplaint, Alpha Gas provides gas and electrical services for bothresidential and commercial customers in New York, New Jersey,Pennsylvania and Ohio. Alpha Gas allegedly uses telemarketing toobtain new clients and supposedly placed a telemarketing call toPlaintiff's cell phone. Plaintiff claims that when he answeredthe call, there was no one on the other end of the line. He "saidhello three times before hearing a distinctive 'click' and atelemarketing representative answered his greeting." Based onthese facts, Plaintiff claimed that Alpha Gas used an automatictelephone dialing system ("ATDS") to place the telemarketing callwithout Plaintiff's prior express consent, in violation of theTCPA.

Plaintiff sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons"who, within four years prior to the filing of this action,through the date of certification, Defendant or some person onDefendant's behalf, called using an automated telephone dialingsystem to phone numbers that are assigned to a cellular telephoneservice." According to Plaintiff's expert witness who analyzedAlpha Gas's call logs, the electric company allegedly made orcaused to be made 452,124 telemarketing calls to 251,504 uniquecellular telephone numbers.

The parties engaged in litigation for over a year. Alpha Gas madean Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff, which was rejected. Alpha Gasthen petitioned the Court for a stay pending the Supreme Court'sdecisions in Spokeo and Campbell-Ewald, which was granted. Theparties subsequently agreed to continue the stay after theissuance of the Supreme Court's decisions in an effort to settlethe case. On August 8, 2016, the parties participated in a full-day mediation and reached an agreement on the material terms of aclass settlement.

II. Class Action Settlement

The settlement class consists of:

All individuals and entities who at any time subscribed to, used,regularly placed or received calls on or from or owned any of thephone numbers that are listed and/or contained in the Class List,who, from July 8, 2011 through the date of class certification,[Defendant] called using an automated telephone dialing system orprerecorded voice, or who were listed on the Do Not Call list orotherwise did not consent to the receipt of such calls, or whootherwise have claims against the Released Parties arising underthe TCPA or similar federal, state or local laws governing suchmatters, including without limitation the claims alleged in theAction, including calls placed to cell phones without therecipients' consent.

The settlement provides for a $1.1 million common fund that willbe divided among claimants who submit valid claims. Class counselintends to apply, subject to the approval of the Court, for a feeaward of up to one-third of the common fund and for an incentiveaward of $10,000 for the named plaintiff. Finally, the settlementagreement provides that Alpha Gas will retain counsel to advise itregarding its future telemarketing compliance with the TCPA andrelated laws. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for April2017.

III. Conclusion

All industries, ranging from motor coach leasing companies to debtcollectors and gas and electric companies, are facing high-pricedTCPA class action settlements and exposure. Companies should takenotice of the TCPA's requirements and ensure compliance beforebecoming the next target of the plaintiffs' bar.

Troutman Sanders has a team of seasoned TCPA litigation andcompliance lawyers that regularly advise companies on strategiesto comply with the TCPA. Troutman Sanders' vast experience inTCPA-related obligations and compliance helps clients betteridentify compliance-related issues before they become problematic.

ANTONELLI COLLEGE: Reopens Nursing Program Amid Class Actions-------------------------------------------------------------Erin Caproni, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reportsthat Antonelli College's Cincinnati campus has begun enrollingstudents for its nursing program that lost accreditation in March.

The Ohio Board of Nursing voted to extend conditional approval ofthe practical nursing program at the college, and students canstart enrolling now for the semester that begins in January.

"We are thrilled with the board's decision to extend approval forour nursing program," Mary Ann Davis, president of AntonelliCollege, said in a statement. "We have worked very cooperativelywith the board to be certain we are in compliance with all therequirements of a quality PN program. This extension of ourapproval validates all of our efforts and allows us to continue toserve our students and the Greater Cincinnati community."

The program lost its accreditation in March after it failed to fixsome violations and standard issues discovered by the board.Following the program's suspension, class-action lawsuits werefiled by students.

Nursing student Annie Borden filed a class action suit againstfor-profit Antonelli in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleason April 5. In her suit she claims that she and other nursingstudents -- a number her attorney estimates to be between 40 and50 -- were misled about the status of the school's practicalnursing program's accreditation with the state of Ohio andcontinued to be charged tuition up through the program's ultimatesuspension on March 30. The case has been moved to federal court.

A second class-action suit against the school and its nursingprogram was later filed on behalf of student Tenesha Adams andother Antonelli nursing students. It has also been moved tofederal court in conjunction with Borden's case.

Both class-action lawsuits claim the nursing program at Antonellihas been fraught with issues since it was granted conditionalapproval to operate the program in 2012. Court documents statethat the college asked the board to postpone the implementationdate of its conditional approval twice, ultimately to September2013.

Student Lauren Cross and twelve other students expected tograduate in May filed a separate lawsuit in Hamilton County courtson charges of fraud, breach of contract and negligence, theEnquirer reports. A jury trial in that case is set forJune 5, 2017.

ARIZONA: Border Patrol Ordered to Improve Detention Conditions--------------------------------------------------------------Astrid Galvan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that afederal judge in Tucson, Ariz., has ordered the Border Patrol toimprove conditions at its holding facilities in most of the state,saying the agency was not following its own standards by keepingmigrants in crowded, cold cells without proper bedding.

Judge David Bury issued the temporary order on Nov. 18 requiringthe Border Patrol's Tucson Sector to provide clean mats and thinblankets to migrants held for longer than 12 hours and to allowthem to wash or clean themselves.

Judge Bury said plaintiffs presented persuasive evidence thatbasic human needs of migrants were not being met.

The case was brought last year by the ACLU, the Morrison andFoerster law firm, and other immigrant rights organizations onbehalf of migrants who say the Border Patrol's holding facilitiesin Arizona are unsanitary, extremely cold and inhumane. Migrantsregularly call holding cells "hieleras," the Spanish word for"freezer."

"We believe that the conditions were so below par that when youhave people, whether it's two nights or one night sleeping on thefloor, that is just below any constitutional standards or norms ofdecency," ACLU senior counsel Dan Pochoda said.

Judge Bury issued the temporary injunction after a hearing atwhich both parties made arguments.

The Border Patrol has defended its practices and said it'scommitted to the safety, security and welfare of detainees. Theagency did not respond to a request for comment on the order.

It maintains that it provides migrants with basic human needs inaccordance with its own policies, and that agents provide medicalcare, warmth, sanitation, food and water, and allows detainees tosleep.

But photos released this year after a legal battle by thegovernment to keep them under seal show men jammed together undera thin thermal blanket and a woman using a concrete floor strewnwith trash to change a baby's diaper.

Other photos show rusty toilets, dirty toilet paper on the floorand a malfunctioning water fountain in detention areas.

The cells shown in the images are designed to provide short-termshelter for detainees until they can be processed, the agencysaid. Migrants are usually deported or transferred to the custodyof U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has long-termdetention centers.

The order issued on Nov. 18 applies to the Tucson Sector's eightfacilities and is temporary while the case plays out in court,although Mr. Pochoda says it's a good indicator that plaintiffshave the upper hand.

Bury also ordered the Border Patrol to provide medical screeningat all times at all stations, monitor cell temperature, ensurethat the stations have working sinks and toilets and othermaterials "sufficient to meet the personal hygiene needs" ofmigrants, and provide personal products like toilet paper andtoothbrushes.

Last year, Judge Bury issued sanctions against the Border Patrolover destruction of surveillance video evidence in the case.

The coalition receives continuous surveillance video from theBorder Patrol as ordered by Bury, said Nora Preciado, a staffattorney for the National Immigration Law Center.

The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of three immigrants butis now a class-action suit.

Jamie D. Thornton and Russell P. Thornton entered into a retailinstallment sales contract and security agreement with Wells FargoFinancial on July 3, 2006, to purchase and finance a used motorvehicle, according to a complaint filed Sept. 6 in Raleigh CircuitCourt.

The Thorntons claim they subsequently defaulted on the contractand the vehicle was repossessed and sold at a private sale onMarch 30, 2010.

The plaintiffs received a written explanation of the calculationof the deficiency from Wells Fargo after the sale of thecollateral by letter dated April 1, 2010, establishing adeficiency balance due of $10,220.37 and, on May 19, 2011, WellsFargo assigned and/or sold the rights under the contract toAutovest, according to the suit.

AUSTRALIA: Retta Dixon Abuse Class Action to Enter Mediation------------------------------------------------------------Jane Bardon, writing for ABC, reports that former residents of achurch-run home for Indigenous Stolen Generation children inDarwin have moved a step closer to becoming the first group togain compensation from the Federal Government after givingevidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses toChild Sexual Abuse.

Eighty-five Retta Dixon Home residents launched a class action inthe Northern Territory Supreme Court in September 2015 to try togain redress for years of horrific sexual and physical abuse.

The case has now been put on hold because the Commonwealth hasagreed to go into mediation.

Bill Piper is the residents' solicitor.

"The Commonwealth have been proposing the mediation at this point,which is a very positive thing, because it's consistent with aparty to an action that is acting in good faith and wanting to tryand resolve it," he said.

"That's pretty encouraging and we're really looking forward tothat opportunity to sit down and mediate an outcome," she said.'The impacts have been horrendous'

Sue Roman was taken from her mother, who had also been removedfrom her own mother, to Retta Dixon, as a baby, in 1950.

She was like many of the children there, forcibly taken fromIndigenous mothers, to the home run by Australian IndigenousMinistries from 1946 to 1980, and overseen by the Commonwealth.

Other children were taken there voluntarily by unsuspectingmothers who could not afford to look after them or thought theywould be given a better life.

Sue Roman spent 13 years at Retta Dixon, before being sent to afoster family in Victoria.

"The abuses Retta Dixon people suffered need to be addressed, fromphysical, mental, sexual, lack of education, and a child died atthe hand of one of the missionaries," she said.

Ms Roman said giving evidence to the Commission, in Darwin twoyears ago, about rapes, beatings and force feeding by missionaryhouse parents, including a convicted sex offender, has opened alot of painful memories which many former residents had hiddenaway from families and friends.

"The impacts of doing all of that has been horrendous, it's openedreally old wounds for a lot of people who had these really darksecrets," she said.

'They allowed us to live there without rescuing'

Barbara Cummings was taken from her mother in Darwin and broughtto the home in 1948.

She was beaten regularly during 17 years there.

"I was a child of 10 or 11 and you don't beat a child with a canethat severe, or humiliate the child, to the severity where he orshe crumbles," she said.

She and other residents view the Commonwealth, which inspected thehome, as just as responsible as its operators.

"The fact is, that they owe us. They allowed us to live there forall those years without any rescuing," she said.

The Department of the Prime Minister said the Commonwealth is opento using alternative dispute mechanisms including mediation.

"The Commonwealth is committed to working with the claimants toresolve the matter," the Department said.

"The Commonwealth acknowledges the great distress and harm thatwas suffered by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAustralians as a result of past removal practices."

The residents have gained no assurances about AustralianIndigenous Ministries' attitude to mediation.

The Federal Government's voluntary compensation scheme offer hasnot dissuaded the former residents from their court fight.

Half of the former residents are suing for physical abuse, whichis not covered by the Federal scheme.

They view the $150,000 cap on claims, as too low in the cases ofsevere sexual abuse.

"The degree of harm that our people endured, I would like to thinkthat we can get something better," Ms Roman said.

Ms Roman hopes if the case gains a successful outcome for theresidents that it will act as a model for other groups seekingcompensation for historic, or more recent abuse.

"What went on in Retta Dixon is still going on in foster care andresidential care. There's a lot of lessons to be learned from ourcase and it may set up a model in the future for other people whowant to take a similar route," she said.

"Children have just been so powerless within systems which theyhaven't chosen themselves to opt into."

The Retta Dixon case mediation is expected to start in February.

AUSTRALIA: Baby Exposed to Williamtown RAAF Base Contamination--------------------------------------------------------------The Australian Associated Press reports that a 10-month-old babyhas been exposed to significant levels of toxic chemicals around aRAAF base near Newcastle, say his parents who are part of a classaction against the defence department.

"In nine months he's accumulated three times more [chemicals] thanI have and we attribute that to . . . hand-to-mouth contact,"Samantha Kelly said of her son's blood tests.

She and her husband Jamie spoke to reporters outside the FederalCourt in Sydney on Nov. 22 after they decided to move from theirWilliamtown home.

"Our doctor advised that if it were his children, he wouldn't livein the zone anymore," Ms Kelly said.

They are part of a group of residents who live near theWilliamtown base suing the Commonwealth for compensation.

They say their livelihoods and property values had been severelyaffected since news broke that chemicals once used in firefightingfoam had leached into ground and surface water.

Their case came before court for the first time on Nov. 22 whenthe judge fixed a timetable for the legal proceedings.

"The claim relates to matters going back to the 1970s, about whatthe Commonwealth did with these substances at particular timesacross some four or five decades," he said.

The residents also wanted to know what the Commonwealth knew aboutthe substances and Mr Free said this may involve differentagencies.

The Commonwealth would also have to consider whether any cross-claims would be launched by it against other parties.

Outside court, the residents' lawyer Ben Allen said that 18 otherbases around Australia were being investigated in relation tocontamination.

Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group spokeswomanRhianna Gorfine said families such as the Kellys had been putunder immense anxiety and stress.

"We have foam gathering in drains, lying around neighbouringproperties. People do not know where to go," she said.

"Imagine living on a property that . . . could or could not beharming your family. How do you live with yourself?"

The case will return to court next year.

AUSTRALIA: Defence to Sue Third Parties Over RAAF Contamination---------------------------------------------------------------Carrie Fellner, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers for theDepartment of Defence and members of a class action have come faceto face in court, where it was revealed Defence is consideringsuing third parties over contamination surrounding an RAAF basenear Newcastle.

The contamination, caused by toxic firefighting foam used atWilliamtown RAAF base for nearly 40 years, spread in ground andsurface water to surrounding properties.

As a result, the value of some homes inside the contamination "redzone" plunged and residents worried about the impact on theirhealth.

The matter was heard for the first time in the Federal Court onNov. 22, as lawyers for the Commonwealth asked for more time tofile their defence so they could examine the possibility ofcounter-claims against third parties.

The development means private companies and even other governmentagencies could become embroiled in the multimillion-dollar legalbattle.

But Justice Jayne Jagot rejected a request for an end of Marchdeadline, instead ordering that the defence be filed by February28 and the matter return to court in April.

Oliver Gayner, a representative of IMF Bentham which is fundingthe class action, said they were unaware of who might be thetarget of a counter claim.

"Our case is that Defence is responsible for this damage,"Mr Gayner said.

Jamie Kelly and his son William travelled to Sydney on Nov. 22 forthe class action.

"I am not sure who else Defence may seek to blame -- possibly 3M[the manufacturer of the foam] -- but if you ask our classmembers, it is Defence who should take responsibility for itsactions."

Justice Jagot also ordered that Defence be prepared for an-out-of-court mediation when the case returns to court in April.

Mr Gayner said that was welcome news from the residents'perspective.

Mr Gayner said it was too early to put a dollar figure on thedamages being pursued by residents.

"In our letter of demand we proposed an out-of-court process.We've only gone to court because we've been forced to, and whilstwe're prepared to continue with the court process for as long asnecessary, anything that brings forward what the community wants -- which is the full resolution of their claims -- is a goodthing."

In a statement to the Herald, a Defence spokesperson confirmed thedepartment had the obligation to act as a 'model litigant' underthe Legal Services Directions Act (2005).

Such principles apply to most government agencies involved incourt action, and require that they do not cause unnecessarydelays or rely on technical defences, pay legitimate claimswithout litigation and apologise where aware they have actedwrongfully or improperly.

"Additionally, the Commonwealth will comply with any orders anddirections issued by the Federal Court in this matter," theDefence spokesperson said.

Salt Ash resident Kim Smith said it was an "emotional" day for theresidents who travelled to Sydney. She welcomed the "no-nonsense"approach of the judge.

Samantha and Jamie Kelly brought their 10-month-old son William tothe case's opening day.

The couple abandoned their Williamtown property and moved to innerNewcastle after blood tests revealed 'significant' concentrationsof the toxic foam in William's body.

Ms Kelly described the class action as a "significant first stepfor our battle to hold Defence to account for poisoning ourcommunity".

"We couldn't be prouder of the residents who attended court withus and are fighting to save our children from this toxic mess,"she said.

AUSTRALIA: DoD Has Until Feb. to Reply to Contamination Case------------------------------------------------------------Jackson Vernon, writing for ABC, reports that the Department ofDefence has been given until February to reply to a class actionput against them by the Williamtown community.

Law firm Gadens is representing more than 400 residents from SaltAsh, Williamtown and Fullerton Cove who are seeking compensationafter their property values were affected by toxic firefightingchemicals which leached from the Williamtown Air Force Base intothe groundwater.

Department of Defence lawyers asked the court whether they couldreply to the class action in March, saying responding to theallegations was a "complicated matter".

They told the court this was to take into account the Christmasbreak but also that the claim "raises matters going back to the1970s about what the Commonwealth did with this substance (fire-fighting foam)".

The court also heard of the potential for a cross claim, which theABC understands could be against the manufacturer of the foam.

Outside of court, Rhianna Gorfine from the Williamtown andSurrounds Action Group said residents were disappointed Defencewere trying to push out the timeline.

"An extra four weeks for Defence to get their act together whenthey've known about this for decades and they've known about whatthis community is doing for a long, long time up in Williamtown,four weeks can mean a change of a lifetime," she said.

"Imagine living on a property that you don't know could or couldnot be harming your family. How do you live with yourself, how doyou move forward?"

Justice Jayne Jagot asked Defence to reply to the class action bythe end of February, and the case is due back in court in April.

Family forced to leave home in 'red zone'

The court hearing coincided with a major development with oneWilliamtown family.

Jamie and Sam Kelly, who are taking part in the class action, havemoved out of their home in the red zone into inner city Newcastle.

Mrs Kelly said they made the decision to move after test resultscame back for their 10-month-old son William showing chemicalslevels above hers.

"As a mother I have gone above and beyond everything that theDepartment of Defence and New South Wales Health have told me todo in terms of limiting his exposure. Yet I still haven't beenable to protect him from contamination," she said.

"I am looking forward to being able to live in a house and put myson on the grass, I can put myself down on the grass and let himplay in the dirt like any child has the right to do in Australia."

Mr Kelly says the contamination has also caused financialproblems.

"We've been given advice that we are not in a position to sell ourproperty, that it's very unlikely to sell and even if we were wewere going to get a considerable loss on our asset," he said.

"We're having to downsize our life, we're having to make ends meetby any way that we can. For the types of things that any parentwould do to protect their child."

Lawyer for the residents Ben Allen has said the case couldinfluence how other cases play out -- residents on Queensland'sDarling Downs are preparing to pursue a class action against theRAAF for a similar contamination.

"Defence will be looking at this for a number of bases acrossAustralia," he said.

"Currently there are 18 bases under investigation with another 20being looked at after that, so this is a very serious issue forthe Department of Defence and one for them to consider."

AVID TECHNOLOGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, disclosed thata class action has been commenced in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of allpurchasers of Avid Technology, Inc. common stock during the periodbetween August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive (the "ClassPeriod"). Defendants are Avid Technology, Inc., Louis Hernandez,Jr., and Ilan Sidi.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Courtno later than 60 days from November 21, 2016. If you wish todiscuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, oryour rights or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, pleaseinclude your phone number. If you are a member of this class, youcan view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this classaction online at http://www.johnsonandweaver.com. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffthrough counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing andremain an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, AvidTechnology made materially false and misleading statementsregarding its business, operations, earnings, and financialprospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during theClass Period Avid knew but failed to disclose that because it hadnot launched all the enterprise level features for its new NEXISsolution product offerings, its enterprise customers weredeferring renewals and purchases. The complaint alleges that onNovember 9, 2016, after the close of trading, Avid suddenlydisclosed that both its 3Q16 bookings and revenues had come inconsiderably lower than the Company had led the investmentcommunity to expect, blaming "the transition of the storageproduct line" and disclosing that "some existing enterpriseclients deferred normal upgrade and renewal decisions and newcustomers postponed investments until the release of functionalitytargeted to the enterprise market." The complaint alleges that onthis news, the Company's stock price plummeted 28% on November 10,2016, on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofAvid's common stock during the Class Period.

BANCORPSOUTH INC: Awaits Final OK of Deal to Settle Suit vs. Bank-----------------------------------------------------------------BancorpSouth, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its subsidiary'sagreement to settle a putative class action lawsuit filed inFlorida, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On January 5, 2016, the Bank entered into an agreement to settle aclass action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customerof the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districtof Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft feeswere charged and the policies related to the posting order ofdebit card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim underArkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seekingto recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of$16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amountsto be paid in connection with the settlement, net of amounts theCompany had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previousperiods. The settlement was approved by the court on July 15,2016. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving thesettlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts accrued forsettlement were paid into settlement escrow funds.

BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Tennessee-------------------------------------------------------------BancorpSouth, Inc., continues to defend a purported class actionlawsuit pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On July 31, 2014, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-actionlawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle Districtof Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company'scommon stock. The complaint was subsequently amended to add theformer President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaintalleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerningthe Company's expectation that it would be able to close twomerger transactions within a specified time period and theCompany's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-moneylaundering requirements. On July 10, 2015, the court granted inpart and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss anddismissed the claims concerning the Company's expectations aboutthe closing of the mergers. Class certification was granted onApril 21, 2016, and a petition for immediate appeal of the classcertification was filed and was granted. Class certification wasvacated and the case was remanded to the District Court forfurther proceedings. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount ofdamages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such otherequitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

At this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine theprobability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company as it isuncertain whether class certification will be upheld and the exactamount of damages (should the class remain certified) isuncertain. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimateresolution or financial liability with respect to the litigation,management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of thislawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company'sbusiness, consolidated financial position or results ofoperations.

The defendant, Bask Technology, Inc., provides remote technicalsupport for homes and businesses. The specific individuals whoprovided this support for Bask's customers are called RemoteTechnical Advisors (RTAs).

The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleged that the plaintiff,D'Angelo Ferreri, and all RTAs who performed work for Baskcustomers were improperly classified as independent contractorsinstead of employees and as a result not paid a minimum wage orovertime. To that end, the SAC asserted two FLSA claims andvarious claims under California's labor and unfair businesspractices laws on behalf of the plaintiff and one putative FLSAcollective and two putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23classes. In addition to Bask, the complaint named as a defendantField Nation, LLC, one of several third-parties, referred to as"pods," that Bask used to obtain RTAs to perform the support workfor Bask's customers. In or around February 2016, Ferreri settledwith Field Nation for a payment of $6,000.

On October 14, 2016, Ferreri sought approval of a "CollectiveAction Settlement Agreement and Release" and attorneys' fees. Thesettlement agreement purported to be between Bask and Ferreri, "onbehalf of himself and all those who opted-in to the conditionallycertified collective action by executing a Consent to Join Form."

According to the settlement agreement, Bask has agreed to pay agross settlement amount of $117,969.57, allocated as follows:$39,616.75 to the settlement members for their claims; $2,000 asan incentive award for Ferreri; and $75,000 to the plaintiff'scounsel; and $1,352.82 in costs.

Judge Bencivengco, however, found that the proposed settlementcontains numerous deficiencies that preclude a finding that thesettlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fidedispute over FLSA provisions. The judge found that theinconsistencies among (1) the terms of the proposed settlementagreement, (2) the identity of the opt-in collective members, (3)the extent of the plaintiff's counsel's representation of the opt-in members, and (4) the claims in the SAC as compared with theclaims being released in the settlement agreement, made itimpossible to determine what the settlement encompasses and whatis happening to the claims in the complaint that are not includedin the settlement, if any. Moreover, Judge Bencivengco also foundthat the agreed upon distribution of Bask's settlement paymentincludes a grossly unreasonable share for the plaintiff's counsel.The judge concluded that any one of these deficiencies precludesapproval of the settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Bencivengco's November 21, 2016 order isavailable at https://is.gd/u0ptoX from Leagle.com.

BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Haas Files Appeal in 3rd Circuit-------------------------------------------------------TAMMY MARIE HAAS, Individually an on behalf of a Class ofSimilarly Situated Individuals, the Plaintiff - Petitioner, v.CONRAD SZCZPANIAK; COUNTY OF BURLINGTON; BURLINGTON COUNTY JAIL;and RONALD COX, both in his individual and Representative capacityas Warden of the Burlington County Jail, the Plaintiff -Respondents, and NOEL L. HILLMAN, Not Party - Nominal Respondent,Case No. 16-4183 (3rd Cir, Nov. 25, 2016), is an appeal filedbefore the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit,from a lower court decision in Case No. 1-08-cv-01102 (D.N.J.).

Attorney for TAMMY MARIE HAAS, individually and on behalf of aClass of Similarly Situated Individuals is:

C&J ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of Miami Trust Suit Pending-------------------------------------------------------------City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees'Retirement Trust, et al.'s appeal from the dismissal of theirshareholder litigation remains pending, C&J Energy Services Ltd.said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") andNabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination ofLegacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production servicesbusiness (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became asubsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the "Merger"). Theresulting combined company is currently led by the formermanagement team of Legacy C&J.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors,and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putativeclass action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder ofLegacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City ofMiami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' RetirementTrust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July30, 2014 (the "Shareholder Litigation"). Plaintiff in theShareholder Litigation generally alleges that the board ofdirectors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, duecare, good faith, candor and independence by allegedly approvingthe Merger Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfairprocess. Plaintiff alleges that the Legacy C&J board directors, orcertain of them (i) failed to fully inform themselves of themarket value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value and obtain the bestprice reasonably available for Legacy C&J, (ii) acted in bad faithand for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourageother strategic alternatives and (iv) put their personal interestsahead of the interests of Legacy C&J shareholders. The ShareholderLitigation further alleges that Legacy C&J, Nabors and New C&Jaided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by theLegacy C&J board of directors.

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint namingadditional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to theallegations described above, that (i) the special committee of theLegacy C&J board of directors and its advisors improperlyconducted the court-ordered solicitation that the Delaware SupremeCourt vacated and (ii) the proxy statement filed in connectionwith the Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omitsallegedly material information concerning the Merger and court-ordered solicitation process. The Shareholder Litigation asserts,in addition to the claims described above, claims for breach offiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary dutyagainst the special committee of the Legacy C&J board ofdirectors, its financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and certainemployees of Legacy C&J. Following the death of Josh Comstock, ourfounder and former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of theBoard of Directors, Plaintiff substituted the executor of Mr.Comstock's estate in place of Mr. Comstock as a defendant in theShareholder Litigation.

The defendants in the Shareholder Litigation filed motions todismiss the amended complaint. On August 24, 2016, the Court ofChancery of the State of Delaware granted defendants' motions anddismissed the Shareholder Litigation in its entirety withprejudice. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice ofAppeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, appealing the dismissal ofthe Shareholder Litigation. Plaintiffs' appeal is pending.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this or anyother lawsuit that might be filed, nor can it predict the amountof time and expense that will be required to resolve theShareholder Litigation. The Company believes the ShareholderLitigation is without merit and it intends to defend against itvigorously.

C&J Energy Services Ltd. provides well construction, wellcompletions, well support and other complementary oilfieldservices to oil and gas exploration and production companiesprimarily in North America. As one of the largest completion andproduction services companies in North America, C&J offers a full,vertically integrated suite of services involved in the entirelife cycle of the well, including hydraulic fracturing, cased-holewireline, coiled tubing, cementing, rig services, fluidsmanagement services and other special well site services.

In West Virginia, the Secretary of State has established a state-wide online voter registration system pursuant to her statutoryauthority. Of the 55 counties in West Virginia, all but CabellCounty allow residents to register using the online system. InCabell County, when a resident attempts to register through theonline system, Karen Cole, in her official capacity as Clerk ofCabell County, West Virginia, sends the applicant a letter with apaper registration application to complete.

The filing deadline for registering to vote in West Virginia forthe 2016 general election was October 18. Allison Mullins, aresident of Cabell County, attempted to register using the onlinesystem on October 16, two days prior to the deadline. Despitecompleting the online registration, Mullins was not registered tovote in Cabell County pursuant to Cole's policy.

On October 20, 2016, Mullins filed a Verified Class ActionComplaint against Cole, in her official capacity as Clerk ofCabell County, West Virginia, to enjoin Cole from refusing toprocess the online applications and to issue a mandamus directingher to process the online voter registration applications andchanges to voter registrations for all those who are otherwisequalified.

With her Complaint, Mullins filed an Emergency Motion for aTemporary Restraining Order, and a Motion for Class Certification.The Court, however, converted the action into one for preliminaryinjunction.

Judge Chambers had no difficulty finding Cole's policy results inan unconstitutional burden on the right of Cabell County voters tovote. The judge found that, without doubt, the would-be voters ofCabell County who attempted to register online face a significantinjury if they fail to complete the additional and unnecessarysteps required by Cole.

Accordingly, Judge Chambers found that Mullins has made a clearshowing that:

(1) she is likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) without immediate Court intervention, there is likely to be irreparable harm to would-be voters who attempted to register online but who did not complete a paper application as they would be prevented from voting in the general election;

(3) the balance of equities tips in her favor; and

(4) an injunction is in the public interest as it protects the fundamental right to vote.

A full-text copy of Judge Chambers' November 21, 2016 memorandumopinion and order is available at https://is.gd/xu6sDj fromLeagle.com.

CAESARS ACQUISITION: Court Tosses "Koskie" Suit Over CEC Merger---------------------------------------------------------------The Court dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit commenced byNicholas Koskie arising from the proposed merger of CaesarsAcquisition Company and Caesars Entertainment Corporation,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

On December 21, 2014, the Company and CEC entered into anAgreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant towhich, among other things, CAC will merge with and into CEC, withCEC as the surviving company (the "Proposed Merger").

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the Stateof Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board ofdirectors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, DonKornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (theindividual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). TheNevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty againstthe CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary dutyagainst CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim forbreach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) toorder the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CACin connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcingtheir intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested partiesproposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflictsexist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and theirfiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the ProposedMerger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and(c) act independently to protect the interests of theshareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for alldamages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and theputative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) toaward the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It isunclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin theProposed Merger.

On October 14, 2016, the Nevada Lawsuit was dismissed withoutprejudice by the court for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to localrule, the case may be reinstated at the plaintiff's writtenrequest, provided such request is received no later than Nov. 14,2016.

CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without meritand will defend themselves vigorously.

The Company says it cannot provide assurance as to the outcome ofthis matter or of the range of reasonably possible losses shouldthis matter ultimately be resolved against the Company due to theinherent uncertainty of litigation and the stage of the relatedlitigation.

CAESARS GROWTH: Court Stays Proceedings in Noteholders Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The Bankruptcy Court has granted Caesars Entertainment OperatingCompany, Inc.'s motion for a stay of the proceedings in thelawsuit initiated by noteholders, according to Caesars GrowthProperties Holdings, LLC's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

On September 3, 2014, holders of approximately $21 million ofCaesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. Senior UnsecuredNotes due 2016 and 2017 filed suit in federal district court inUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkagainst CEC and CEOC, claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on theone hand) and certain other holders of the CEOC Senior UnsecuredNotes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under theSenior Unsecured Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory andmonetary relief. On October 2, 2014, other holders of CEOC SeniorUnsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of allholders of these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed asubstantially similar suit in the same court, against the samedefendants, relating to the same transactions. Both lawsuits (the"Senior Unsecured Lawsuits") were assigned to the same judge. Theclaims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during itsChapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied a motion todismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC. The parties havecompleted fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claimsagainst CEC.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuitsmoved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015,those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in theaction brought on behalf of holders of CEOC's 6.50% SeniorUnsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing hasbeen completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafterretired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over theselawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule,and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment whichremain pending.

On October 5, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted CEOC's motion fora stay of these proceedings (and others). The stay will remain ineffect until the earlier of (a) the first omnibus hearing afterthe Bankruptcy Court issues its decision confirming or denyingconfirmation of the CEOC reorganization plan, (b) the terminationof the Second Lien RSA or (c) further order of the BankruptcyCourt. CAC and CGP LLC are not parties to these lawsuits.

CAESARS GROWTH: "Koskie" Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice---------------------------------------------------------------The shareholder class action filed by Nicholas Koskie has beendismissed without prejudice, Caesars Growth Properties Holdings,LLC said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the Stateof Nevada against Caesars Acquisition Company ("CAC"), CaesarsEntertainment Corporation ("CEC") and members of the CAC board ofdirectors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, DonKornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (theindividual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). TheNevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty againstthe CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary dutyagainst CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim forbreach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) toorder the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CACin connection with the Proposed Merger between CAC and CECannounced on December 22, 2014 (the "Proposed Merger"),specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate withbona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions,(b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors'personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximizeshareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all suchconflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently toprotect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CACDirectors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered bythe plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the ProposedMerger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs andattorneys' fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit alsoseeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger.

On October 14, 2016, the Nevada Lawsuit was dismissed withoutprejudice by the court for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to localrule, the case may be reinstated at the plaintiff's writtenrequest, provided such request is received no later than Nov. 14,2016. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is withoutmerit and will defend themselves vigorously.

The Company says it cannot provide assurance as to the outcome ofthis matter or of the range of reasonably possible losses shouldthis matter ultimately be resolved against the Company due to theinherent uncertainty of litigation and the stage of the relatedlitigation.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the federalsecurities laws by disseminating false and misleading statementsto the investing public. Cempra's stock trading at artificiallyinflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $32.81per share. On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) released a report analyzing Cempra's clinicaldevelopment program for solithromycin to treat CABP, whichhighlighted a significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity anddrug-induced liver injury. As a result of this news, the price ofCempra stock dropped $11.35 per share to closeat $7.30 per share on November 2, 2016, a one-day decline ofnearly 61% on volume of 20.7 million shares. Due to Defendants'false and misleading statements, Cempra common stock traded atartificially inflated prices during the Class Period. After theabove revelations seeped into the market, the price of theCompany's common stock dropped nearly 78% from its Class Periodhigh, causing economic harm and damages to class members.

Cempra is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that developsantibiotics for the treatment of infectious diseases. Cempra'slead product, solithromycin (CEM-101), is beingdeveloped in oral capsule, intravenous (IV) and suspensionformulations for the treatment of community-acquired bacterialpneumonia (CABP), as well as for the treatment of gonorrhea andfor other indications.

CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Suit Pending-------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of the Total Bond MarketFund Litigation remains pending in the U.S. Court Appeals for theNinth Circuit, according to The Charles Schwab Corporation's Form10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California on behalfof investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). Thelawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federalsecurities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of thefund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees asdefendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviatedfrom its stated investment objectives by investing incollateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities withoutobtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecifiedcompensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable andinjunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federalsecurities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claimswere dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remainingclaims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the districtcourt's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for furtherproceedings.

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, andin decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, thecourt dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealedto the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holdingcompany engaged, through its subsidiaries, in wealth management,securities brokerage, banking, money management, custody, andfinancial advisory services. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab)is a securities broker-dealer with over 330 domestic branchoffices in 46 states, as well as a branch in each of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico and London, England. In addition,Schwab serves clients in Hong Kong through one of CSC'ssubsidiaries. Other subsidiaries include Charles Schwab Bank(Schwab Bank), a federal savings bank, and Charles SchwabInvestment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment advisor forSchwab's proprietary mutual funds, which are referred to as theSchwab Funds(R), and for Schwab's exchange-traded funds (ETFs),which are referred to as the Schwab ETFs(TM).

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Confidential Mediation Ongoing in Water Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The confidential mediation process in the drinking waterlitigation is ongoing and expected to continue as the litigationproceeds, The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Effective prior to the opening of trading on the New York StockExchange on July 1, 2015, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Companycompleted the previously announced separation of the businessescomprising DuPont's Performance Chemicals reporting segment, andcertain other assets and liabilities, into Chemours, a separateand distinct public company.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, wasfiled in West Virginia state court alleging that residents livingnear the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acidand its salts, including the ammonium salt ("PFOA") in drinkingwater.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid theplaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made apayment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund acommunity health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded aseries of health studies which were completed in October 2012 byan independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel).The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA toevaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probablelink exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, betweenexposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel foundprobable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, betweenexposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, includingpreeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,ulcerative colitis and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors releasedits initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testingof eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panelrecommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three yearsafter initial testing, based on individual results. The medicalpanel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completionof its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund upto $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligibleclass members and, in addition, administrative cost associatedwith the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012,Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account tofund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has establishedthe program to implement the medical panel's recommendations andthe registration process, as well as eligibility screening, isongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associatedpayments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrowaccount. As of September 30, 2016, less than $1 million has beendisbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continueto provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA inwater to six area water districts and private well users. Atseparation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which isincluded in the accrual amounts recorded as of September 30, 2016.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPontonly for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Paneldetermined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2016 andDecember 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits filedin various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, anincrease of approximately 600 over year end 2014. These lawsuitsare consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohiofederal court. Based on the information currently available to theCompany, the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injuryclaims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease fromexposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 30 lawsuits allegingwrongful death.

Although the majority of the plaintiffs in the MDL allege multiplediseases, the table below approximates the number of plaintiffs ineach of the six probable link disease categories.

In the third quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL wereselected for individual bellwether trials.

All six bellwether cases in the MDL have now been tried, resolved,appealed or otherwise addressed. Two bellwether cases have beentried. The first case (Bartlett v. DuPont / kidney cancer) wastried to a verdict in October 2015. The jury found in favor of theplaintiff, awarding $1.1 million in damages for negligence and$0.5 million for emotional distress. The jury found that DuPont'sconduct did not warrant punitive damages. A second case (Freemanv. DuPont / testicular cancer) was tried to verdict in July 2016.The jury found in favor of the plaintiff awarding $5.1 million incompensatory damages and $0.5 million in punitive damages andattorneys' fees. Plaintiff's counsel alleges that they areentitled to at least $6.9 million in attorneys' fees and costs forthe Freeman trial. The Court will make a determination after post-trial submissions by the parties. The Court's determination willbe subject to appeal. Court rulings made before and during bothtrials resulted in several significant grounds for appeal and anappeal to the Sixth Circuit has been filed for the first case.This appeal is scheduled for oral arguments on December 9, 2016.The Company, through DuPont, is pursuing post-trial motions andappeals for the second case.

Three bellwether PFOA cases were settled in 2016 as trialapproached. These cases (Wolf v. DuPont/ulcerative colitis, Dowdyv. DuPont/kidney cancer, Baker v. DuPont/kidney cancer) weresettled for amounts well below the incremental cost of preparingfor trials. To date, the settlements have been individually and inaggregate immaterial to the Company. The final case (Pugh v.DuPont/ulcerative colitis) was removed from the bellwethers whenit was determined that the plaintiff did not suffer from thealleged disease.

The trial court announced that, starting in May 2017, 40individual plaintiff trials will be scheduled for a 12-monthperiod. Following the conclusion of the six bellwether cases, onJuly 19, 2016, the court moved two of the 40 matters (Vigneron v.DuPont/testicular cancer and Moody v. DuPont/testicular cancer)forward and set the cases for trial on November 14, 2016 andJanuary 17, 2017, respectively. The trial court's multi-year planpertains only to the approximately 270 cases claiming cancer.Based on the current plan, the remaining cases, comprisingapproximately 93% of the docket, will remain inactive.

A confidential mediation process that the court established earlyin this MDL is ongoing and expected to continue as the litigationproceeds.

Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuitsand is defending itself vigorously. No other claims have beensettled or resolved during the periods presented. DuPont is thenamed defendant in each of these cases and is directly liable forany judgment. If DuPont were to claim that it is entitled toindemnification from Chemours as to some or all of any judgment,Chemours retains its defenses to such claims.

The Chemours Company delivers customized solutions with a widerange of industrial and specialty chemical products for marketsincluding plastics and coatings, refrigeration and airconditioning, general industrial, mining and oil refining.Principal products include titanium dioxide ("TiO2"),refrigerants, industrial fluoropolymer resins and sodium cyanide.

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit by Residents of U.S. Smelter Area--------------------------------------------------------------The Chemours Company is facing a putative class action lawsuitfiled by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and LeadRefinery Inc. multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

Effective prior to the opening of trading on the New York StockExchange on July 1, 2015, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Companycompleted the previously announced separation of the businessescomprising DuPont's Performance Chemicals reporting segment, andcertain other assets and liabilities, into Chemours, a separateand distinct public company.

In October 2016, a putative class action was filed againstChemours by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and LeadRefinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana,under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation andLiability Act ("CERCLA") with trespass and negligence causes ofaction seeking reimbursement for temporary housing, relocation,loss of use and other costs and damages. DuPont has requested thatChemours defend and indemnify it on this matter and a secondmatter alleging claims including personal injury to 13 arearesidents. Management believes a loss is reasonably possible butnot estimable at this time.

At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site,which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfundarea, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation atthe Superfund site.

The Chemours Company delivers customized solutions with a widerange of industrial and specialty chemical products for marketsincluding plastics and coatings, refrigeration and airconditioning, general industrial, mining and oil refining.Principal products include titanium dioxide ("TiO2"),refrigerants, industrial fluoropolymer resins and sodium cyanide.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that they areblack/Haitian/Afro-Haitian/African American recruited by thedefendants to pick blueberries during the March 2012 season. Theplaintiffs' crew leader was Alteric Jean-Charles. The plaintiffsalleged, however, that they were never provided any work when theyreported to the defendants from about March 19, 2012 until aboutMarch 27, 2012, and that the defendants' failure to provide themwith any work constituted unlawful race, color, and nationalorigin discrimination.

The defendants moved to exclude certain evidence from beingpresented at the trial.

The defendants requested that the Court exclude particulartestimony from non-party witness Salvador Grajeda, another crewleader whose crew was partially comprised of Haitian workers. Thedefendants argued that Grajeda's deposition testimony revealedthat he does not have personal knowledge about who were hired bythe defendant, Jack Green, Jr. The defendants also contend thatGrajeda relies on inadmissible hearsay and that his testimony isotherwise highly prejudicial.

Judge Moody found that the defendants' arguments are without meritfor several reasons. The judge held that the plaintiffs should beprovided the opportunity to lay the proper foundation and thatwithout testimony and evidence to provide factual context, aruling on potential hearsay issues would be premature. The judgealso found that the defendants' argument that Grajeda's testimonyis highly prejudicial is too broad. Thus, the judge denied thedefendants' motion on these issues without prejudice to defendantsrenewing their objections at trial.

The defendants also sought to exclude Jean-Charles' testimony andthe testimony of Michel Desulme and Jean Claude Joseph that theysaw "Spanish People," "Mexicans," or "Spanish" individualsstanding in line at the trailer allegedly filling out applicationsafter Green told Jean-Charles that there was no work for his crew,arguing that Jean-Charles, Desulme and Joseph lack personalknowledge as to "why people were standing in line in front of thetrailer . . ."

Judge Moody found this argument to be without merit, holding thatJean-Charles, Desulme, and Joseph can certainly testify about whatthey personally observed.

The defendants sought to exclude inadmissible hearsay testimonyrelated to statements people heard from others that Greenpreferred to hire Mexican/Spanish workers and that there was nowork for Haitians.

Again, Judge Moody denied the defendants' motion on these issueswithout prejudice, although the defendants may assert theseobjections at trial.

Plaintiff Judes Petit-Frere (who passed away during the pendencyof this action) testified that there was a group of Mexicanworkers who were issued ID cards from the defendants that had thesame crew number as the members of Jean-Charles' crew, and theseMexican workers went to work each day while the class members weretold there was no work. The defendants argued that this testimonyis inadmissible because Petit-Frere lacks personal knowledge aboutthese workers, their ID cards, and whether they actually performedany work at Clear Springs.

Judge Moody concluded that Petit-Frere's testimony is admissibleto the extent that it is about what he personally saw or observed.

The defendants anticipated that the plaintiffs will offer intoevidence testimony or documents to show that the defendants didnot offer application forms in Creole, and that the plaintiffs mayuse this evidence to show the defendants' discrimination againstHaitians. The defendants argued that this evidence isinadmissible because it is irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and hasno probative value.

Judge Moody agreed that this evidence is not relevant to theclaims in the case and granted the defendants' motion on thisissue.

The defendants also anticipated that the plaintiffs will offerinto testimony a letter Clear Springs' counsel sent to the EEOCduring the course of its investigation of the charges filed by theplaintiffs. The defendants argued that this anticipated evidenceis irrelevant, lacks foundation, is speculative, and is highlyprejudicial.

Judge Moody, however, concluded that this evidence is relevant: itshows that, during the relevant time, the defendants employedalmost exclusively Latinos, which goes to the heart of theplaintiffs' argument that the defendants preferred Hispanicworkers to Haitians.

The defendants also sought to exclude as "highly prejudicial"evidence that Judes Petit-Frere, who was a class representative,and other class members were killed in a bus accident in March of2015.

Judge Moody concluded that this evidence is not relevant to anyissues in the case and granted the defendants' motion on thisissue.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs should be precluded fromintroducing evidence of punitive damages because the plaintiffshave not presented any evidence to show malice or recklessindifference.

Judge Moody found this argument is inappropriate on a motion forlimine, and denied the defendants' motion on this issue.

Lastly, the defendants argued that the Court should preclude theplaintiffs from offering any expert, document, or witness notproperly and timely disclosed prior to the commencement of trial.The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs should be precludedfrom referencing or mentioning any failure on the defendants' partto call a witness available to all parties.

Judge Moody found that these issues were still premature and werethus denied. Moreover, the judge found that the request aboutreferences to witnesses not called is peculiar to the extent thatthe defendants have made no attempt to show how such a referencewould prejudice them. The motion on this issue was similarlydenied.

A full-text copy of Judge Moody's November 21, 2016 order isavailable at https://is.gd/S1PSAO from Leagle.com.

COLONY STARWOOD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss South Miami Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Colony Starwood Homes awaits ruling on the Defendants' motion todismiss a shareholder lawsuit filed by South Miami Pension Plan inMaryland, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On September 21, 2015, the Company and Colony American Homes,Inc., -- the Company's predecessor for accounting purposes --announced the signing of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated asof September 21, 2015, among the Company and certain of itssubsidiaries and CAH and certain of its subsidiaries and certaininvestors in CAH (the "Merger Agreement"), to combine the twocompanies in a stock-for-stock transaction. In connection withthe transaction, the Company internalized SWAY Management LLC, aDelaware limited liability company, the Company's former externalmanager ("the Manager"). The Merger and the Internalization werecompleted on January 5, 2016.

On October 30, 2015, a putative class action was filed by one ofthe Company's purported shareholders ("Plaintiff") against theCompany, its trustees, the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC, StarwoodCapital Group and CAH ("Defendants") challenging the Merger andthe Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami PensionPlan v. Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Courtfor Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482. Thecomplaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of theCompany's trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approvingthe Merger and the Internalization, and that the other defendantsaided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint alsochallenged the adequacy of the public disclosures made inconnection with the Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiffsought, among other relief, an injunction preventing the Company'sshareholders from voting on the Internalization or the Merger,rescission of the transactions contemplated by the MergerAgreement, and damages, including attorneys' fees and experts'fees.

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking apreliminary injunction preventing the Company's shareholders fromvoting on whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization.On December 16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, theCourt denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiffthereafter notified the Defendants that it intended to file anamended complaint. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint onFebruary 3, 2016, asserting substantially similar claims andseeking substantially similar relief as in its earlier complaint.In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint on March 21, 2016, on which the Court held a hearingJune 1, 2016.

The Company believes that this action has no merit and intends todefend vigorously against it.

Colony Starwood Homes, formerly known as Starwood WaypointResidential Trust is a Maryland real estate investment trust. TheCompany is an internally managed Maryland REIT and commencedoperations in March 2012 primarily to acquire, renovate, lease andmanage residential assets in select markets throughout the UnitedStates.

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: "Warren" Suit Remains Stayed in Missouri-------------------------------------------------------------Commerce Bancshares, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lawsuitinitiated by Cassandra Warren, et al., remains stayed.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaintagainst Commerce Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County,Missouri. The case is Cassandra Warren, et al. v. Commerce Bank(Case No. 1416-CV19197). In the case, the customer allegesviolation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with theBank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The class wascertified and consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who mayhave been similarly affected. The case has been stayed pending thefinal outcome of a similar case in which a ruling has been made infavor of the bank defendant.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until anyappeals in the similar case have run their course. The Companybelieves the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itselfvigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot bedetermined with certainty at this time.

Commerce Bancshares, Inc., provides financial services.

CYNOSURE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Ficken" Class Suit Underway---------------------------------------------------------Cynosure, Inc., awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss thesecond amended complaint filed by Susan Lovell Ficken, accordingto the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On May 2, 2016, Susan Lovell Ficken and certainother named plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putativeclass, filed a complaint against us in Missouri state courtseeking monetary and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costsand attorneys' fees. The matter was removed to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Western District of Missouri - Central Division onJune 3, 2016. The amended complaint, filed on June 27, 2016,alleges that the SmartLipo laser was unlawfully marketed by us andthird parties, giving rise to alleged violations of the MissouriMerchandising Practices Act. It seeks to assert claims on behalfof all individuals who purchased a SmartLipo procedure inMissouri."

"On July 11, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the entire action.In response, on September 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed a secondamended complaint with the same material allegations but thatadded a named plaintiff in an attempt to defeat our statute oflimitations defense. We filed a motion to dismiss the secondamended complaint on September 16, 2016. That motion has beenfully briefed, and we are awaiting the Court's ruling. In theinterim, we are engaged in discovery. In accordance with therequirements imposed upon us by Western District of Missouri'smandatory mediation and assessment program, we are required toparticipate in mediation by February 28, 2017."

The Company believes the claims are without merit, and that it hasmeritorious defenses.

CYNOSURE INC: Explores Possible Class Settlement With ARcare------------------------------------------------------------Cynosure, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016, that it has agreed to explorewith ARcare, Inc., a possible class settlement of the latter'slawsuit .

On July 27, 2016, ARcare, Inc., individually and as putativerepresentative of a purported nationwide class, filed a complaintagainst the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District ofMassachusetts. The plaintiff alleges that we violated the federalTelephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, by sending faxadvertisements that did not comply with statutory and FederalCommunications Commission, or FCC, requirements that sendersprovide recipients with certain information about how to opt outfrom receiving faxed advertisements in the future, and by sendingunsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint seeks damages,declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalfof a purported class of all recipients of purported faxadvertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive anadequate opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for statutory damagesof $500 per violation and gives courts the discretion to increasethat amount up to $1,500 for knowing and willful violations.

On September 30, 2016, the Company answered the complaint anddenied liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent ademand letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damagesunder Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A Section 9, and onOctober 7, 2016, the Company responded denying any liability underChapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages underChapter 93A on an individual basis. To date, the plaintiff has notmoved to amend the complaint to assert a claim under Chapter 93A.

The Company and the plaintiff have agreed to explore a possibleclass settlement of the litigation in a mediation to be held inlate 2016, and on October 12, 2016, the court stayed the caseuntil January 11, 2017, to allow the parties to mediate withoutlitigation.

Based on preliminary estimates, the Company believes the aggregatenumber of faxes sent in the four years prior to the lawsuit to beapproximately 835,000.

The Company says it not recorded a liability in respect of thismatter, and at this time the Company cannot estimate the possibleloss or range of losses that it may incur in respect of thismatter. The Company explains that it is unable to make such anestimate because, among other reasons, the proceedings are at anearly stage and other reported TCPA lawsuits have resulted in abroad range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its ownfacts and circumstances. In addition, the Company believes thatthe outcome of litigation currently pending before the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, etal. v. FCC) may have a significant impact on the outcome of thismatter. In that case, the outcome of which the Company cannotpredict, other companies are challenging the validity of an FCCregulation that requires certain opt out information to beincluded in fax promotions sent to recipients who had givenpermission to receive them. The Company has has also applied tothe FCC for a retroactive waiver from that requirement, which ifapproved, would exempt us from that requirement through April 30,2015. The FCC's ability to issue such waivers is also before theU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the Bais Yaakovmatter, and in any event there can be no assurance that theCompany's application will be granted.

CYNOSURE INC: Wins Partial Judgment in Certain Claim in LDGP Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The Court granted Cynosure, Inc.'s motion for partial judgment inconnection with the negligent misrepresentation count in thelawsuit filed by LDGP, LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016, that

The Company said, "On June 26, 2015, a plaintiff, LDGP, LLC d/b/aHartsough Dermatology, individually and on behalf of a putativeclass, filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Illinois - Western Division seekingmonetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2015,which added three new plaintiffs. The amended complaint allegesthat we falsely represented that the PicoSure laser removes andeliminates tattoos and difficult colors, and alleges violations ofseveral state consumer fraud laws, breach of warranty, common lawfraud and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks to assert claimson behalf of all entities in the United States who purchased aPicoSure laser, except those located in Louisiana."

"On December 7, 2015, we filed our answer and motion for partialjudgment on the pleadings regarding several counts in the amendedcomplaint. On August 15, 2016, the court granted our motion inconnection with the negligent misrepresentation count, and deniedit with respect to the breach of contact claim."

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and thatthe Company has meritorious defenses.

DEAN FOODS: Agrees to the Dismissal of Indirect Purchasers Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Parties agreed to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit filedby indirect purchasers in Tennessee, Dean Foods Company said inits Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filedin the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirectpurchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirectpurchaser action"). This case was voluntarily dismissed, and thesame plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint on January 17,2013. The allegations in this complaint were similar to those inboth the retailer action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action,but involved only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Companyfiled a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the districtcourt granted in part and denied in part that motion, dismissingthe non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed its answerto the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. On March 16, 2016,the court granted a joint motion to stay the indirect purchaseraction pending the Sixth Circuit's decision on the pending classcertification review petition in the retailer action.

On July 11, 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of theindirect purchaser action; the stipulation does not addresswhether the right of plaintiffs to file a new complaint has beenwaived or lost.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible for us topredict the outcome of this matter.

Dean Foods Company is a food and beverage company and the largestprocessor and direct-to-store distributor of milk and other dairyand dairy case products in the United States. The Companyprocesses and distributes fluid milk and other dairy products,including ice cream, ice cream mix and cultured products, whichare marketed under more than 50 local and regional dairy brandsand a wide array of private labels.

DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Retailers Suit Set for Trial on March 28--------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit commenced by retailers inTennessee is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017,according to Dean Foods Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retaileraction") was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors onAugust 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that theCompany, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in themilk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern UnitedStates for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retailoutlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further allege that thedefendants' conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid bydirect milk purchasers. In March 2012, the district court grantedsummary judgment in favor of defendants, including the Company, asto all counts then remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the districtcourt's decision, and in January 2014, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summaryjudgment as to one of the five original counts in the Tennesseeretailer action. Following the Sixth Circuit's denial of ourrequest to reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned theSupreme Court of the United States for review. On November 17,2014, the Supreme Court denied our petition and the case returnedto the district court.

On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgmentto defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On Jan. 25,2016, the district court denied summary judgment in other respectsand denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal thedistrict court's order denying class certification. That petitionwas denied on June 14, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the district courtissued an order holding that the case will be judged under anantitrust legal doctrine known as the rule of reason.

The case is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible for us topredict the outcome of the matter.

Dean Foods Company is a food and beverage company and the largestprocessor and direct-to-store distributor of milk and other dairyand dairy case products in the United States. The Companyprocesses and distributes fluid milk and other dairy products,including ice cream, ice cream mix and cultured products, whichare marketed under more than 50 local and regional dairy brandsand a wide array of private labels.

DNC SERVICES: Former Organizer Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT----------------------------------------------------------------Louie Torres, writing for PennRecord, reports that an organizerformerly employed by a political party has filed a class actionlawsuit alleging she and others were not paid overtime wages.

Bethany Katz filed a complaint on behalf of those similarlysituated on Nov. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania against DNC Services Corp., doingbusiness as Democratic National Committee, and PennsylvaniaDemocratic Committee alleging violation of the Fair LaborStandards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked80 to 90 hours per week and was classified as being exempt fromreceiving overtime wages. The plaintiff holds DNC Services Corp.and Pennsylvania Democratic Committee responsible because thedefendants allegedly failed to pay the plaintiff any overtimepremiums at a rate of time-and-one-half for working more than 40hours per week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensate,reimburse, pay all unpaid wages and benefits, liquidated damages,court costs and any further relief the court grants. She isrepresented by Justin L. Swidler and Richard S. Swartz of SwartzSwidler LLC in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Casenumber 2:16-cv-05800-CDJ

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set----------------------------------------------------------------Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announced the filing ofa class action lawsuit against Dynavax Technologies Corporation("Dynavax" or the "Company") concerning possible violations offederal securities laws between March 10, 2014 and November 11,2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased orotherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contactthe firm in advance of theJanuary 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call BrianLundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail himat brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class iscertified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. Youmay also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, Dynavax made false and/or misleadingstatements and/or failed to disclose: that the phase 3 HBV-23trial for the Company's lead vaccine product HEPLISAV-B was notdesigned in accordance with the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration's concerns and issues; that the Company failed toprovide sufficient information to the FDA in its Revised BiologicsLicense Application for the drug; that Dynavax's resources willnot be sufficient for the Company to advance the HEPLISAV-Bprogram on its own; and that as a result of the above, theCompany's financial statements and statements about its business,operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lackeda reasonable basis.

On November 14, 2016, Dynavax announced that it received aComplete Response Letter from the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration requesting additional information on the Company'sHEPLISAV-B product in connection with its Biologics LicenseApplication.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated toupholding the rights of shareholder.

Oklahoma Insurance Department data show that the approved claimsfor the Sept. 3 earthquake, which was magnitude 5.8 and centerednear Pawnee, totaled $24,000, with the largest single payout ataround $21,000, the Tulsa World reported.

The analysis showed that claims from the Pawnee earthquake wereabout equal to the nearly 340 filed after a magnitude 5.7earthquake struck near the town of Prague in 2011. Insurance datashow about one-third of claims made after that quake wereapproved.

Oklahoma has had thousands of earthquakes in recent years, withnearly all traced to underground wastewater disposal from oil andnatural gas operations. Some scientists say that the high-pressure injection of massive amounts of chemical-laced wastewaterdeep in the earth induces the quakes. Regulators have asked oiland gas producers to either close injection wells or reduce thevolume of fluids they inject.

Pawnee residents filed a class-action lawsuit in district courtagainst energy companies, and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma fileda federal lawsuit seeking drilling permits for oil and natural gaswells on tribal land to be voided.

Insurance policies used to exclude earthquakes triggered byman-made activities, but with the uptick of temblors in Oklahomain recent years, insurers offer policies covering man-made andnatural quakes.

"They're one and the same now; they are definitely covered,"Insurance Commissioner John Doak said. "Over 90 percent of themarket is going to cover earthquakes no matter if they're man-madeor natural."

A 2015 study by the U.S. Geological Survey suggested thatOklahoma's industrial activities, such as natural gas and oilproduction, have caused the sharp rise in earthquakes in the past100 years.

The insurance department doesn't have data available on themagnitude 5.0 temblor that struck on Nov. 6 near Cushing, damagingdozens of buildings in a town that's home to one of the world'skey oil hubs.

EMPIRE DISTRICT: Agrees to Present Suit Settlement to Court-----------------------------------------------------------The Empire District Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that parties tothe Memorandum of Understanding resolving a merger-lawsuit haveagreed to finalize and execute a stipulation of settlement and topresent the settlement for Court approval.

On February 9, 2016, Empire entered into an Agreement and Plan ofMerger (the Merger Agreement) with Liberty Utilities (Central)Co., a Delaware corporation (Liberty Central), and Liberty SubCorp., a Kansas corporation (Merger Sub), providing for the mergerof Merger Sub with and into Empire, with Empire surviving theMerger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty Central (theMerger).

On March 24, 2016, a purported shareholder of Empire filed acomplaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the District Courtfor the 3rd Judicial District, in Shawnee County, Kansas. Theshareholder filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2016. Thecomplaint alleges that Empire's Board of Directors breached itsfiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement by, amongother things, conducting an inadequate sales process and failingto obtain adequate consideration, having an interest in completingthe Merger, and failing to make adequate disclosures in the proxystatement. The complaint seeks various relief, including aninjunction against the Merger. The complaint also alleges thatEmpire, APUC, Liberty Central and Merger Sub aided and abettedsuch alleged breaches.

On June 7, 2016, following arm's length negotiations, Empire andother defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)providing for the settlement, subject to court approval, of allclaims asserted in the complaint against all defendants. Inconnection with the MOU, Empire agreed to make additionaldisclosures related to the Merger in the proxy statement (whichwere made on June 8, 2016). Empire and the other defendants thatentered into the MOU did so solely to avoid the costs, risks anduncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting anyliability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue tovigorously deny, that they committed any violation of law orengaged in any wrongful acts alleged in the complaint.

The parties to the MOU have agreed to attempt in good faith tofinalize and execute a stipulation of settlement and to presentthe stipulation of settlement to the Court for final approval. Thestipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditionsand will provide for, among other things, certification of thealleged class as a non-opt-out class action and an award ofplaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Thestipulation of settlement will also provide for the release of anyand all claims arising out of or relating to the Merger. Thesettlement is subject to final Court approval following notice tothe class members and the parties anticipate this will take placeafter the closing of the Merger.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the settlingparties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement orthat the Court will approve the settlement. In such event, or ifthe Merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposedsettlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.

The Company says the outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predictedwith any certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay orjeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgmentgranting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoincompletion of the Merger. All of the defendants believe that theclaims asserted against them in the lawsuit are without merit.

The Empire District Electric Company (EDE), a Kansas corporationorganized in 1909, is an operating public utility engaged in thegeneration, purchase, transmission, distribution and sale ofelectricity in parts of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas.The Company operates its businesses as three segments: electric,gas and other. As part of its electric segment, the Company alsoprovides water service to three towns in Missouri. The EmpireDistrict Gas Company (EDG) is our wholly-owned subsidiary whichprovides natural gas distribution to customers in 48 communitiesin northwest, north central and west central Missouri. TheCompany's other segment consists of its fiber optics business.

EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: Sued for Denying Health Insurance Coverage---------------------------------------------------------------William Gallagher, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.,d/b/a Empire BlueCross BlueShield, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09105 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks an award of benefitsrepresenting those sums that Plaintiff and class members paid forwilderness treatment that should have been covered by theDefendant.

The Plaintiff further seeks disgorgement of all profits Defendantenjoyed through the use of money that should have been used to payPlaintiffs' and class' legitimate coverage claims; an orderrequiring Defendant to cover all medically necessary wildernesstreatment in the future; and all other relief related to thisaction, including payment of reasonable fees, costs, and interestwhere permitted by law.

According to the complaint, this lawsuit presents a narrow issuethat is of critical importance -- may a health insurer denycoverage for mental health treatment in circumstances where thereis no corresponding limitation for treatment for physical injuryand not violate the federal Mental Health Parity and AddictionEquity Act of 2008 (Parity Act)? It is the burden of this casethat Defendant's denial of coverage breaches the protections ofthe Parity Act, which are -- as a matter of law -- embedded as amaterial term of the contract of insurance that governs the rightsand responsibilities of the parties. William Gallagher receiveshis health insurance through his employer, Mount Sinai HealthSystem, a private, New York city-based hospital and health carecompany. This self-funded health insurance plan is administeredby Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., d/b/a Empire BlueCrossBlueShield. It is regulated by ERISA. Gallagher's16-year-old daughter, J.G., is a covered beneficiary under thisplan, as well.

Defendant is a not-for-profit managed care subsidiary of Anthem,Inc. It is a New York-based entity that administers self-fundedhealth insurance plans.

ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Stockholders to File Consolidated Complaint----------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in two stockholder lawsuits will file aconsolidated complaint this month, according to EndoChoiceHoldings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On July 18, 2016 and October 10, 2016, putative stockholder classaction lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,Georgia, against the Company, certain of the Company's currentofficers, certain current and former members of the Company'sboard of directors, and the underwriters of our initial publicoffering (the "IPO"). The complaints, which are substantiallysimilar, allege that the registration statement for our IPOcontained false and misleading statements relating to sales ofFuse(R) and asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers ofEndoChoice common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO. Thecomplaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, rescission andother relief. The Plaintiffs are seeking consolidation of the twoactions, and have committed to filing an amended consolidatedcomplaint by December 2, 2016.

The Company believes the claims and allegations in the suits arewithout merit, and the Company intends to defend the litigationvigorously.

Based on the limited nature of the plaintiffs' allegations, theearly stage of the proceedings, the lack of discovery and becausesignificant legal issues have yet to be raised and decided by thecourt, we have determined that the amount of any possible loss orrange of possible loss in connection with the above litigation isnot reasonably estimable. While we believe the plaintiffs' claimsand allegations are without merit, due to the uncertaintiesinherent in litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome andresolution of this suit. An adverse outcome could materially andadversely affect the Company's financial condition, results ofoperations, or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

EndoChoice Holdings, Inc., is a medical device companyheadquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, focused exclusively ondesigning and commercializing a platform of innovative productsfor gastrointestinal, or GI, caregivers. The Company offers acomprehensive range of products and services that span single usedevices and infection control, pathology, and imagingtechnologies.

FACEBOOK INC: "Nagby" Files Securities Class Action in Nevada-------------------------------------------------------------AURANGZEB NAGY, individually and on behalf of all those similarlysituated, ROBERT VANNAH, individually and on behalf of allthose similarly situated; GEORGE KLEANTHIS, individually and onbehalf of all those similarly situated, ZANETTA KLEANTHIS,individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a foreign corporation;MARK ZUCKERBERG, an individual, DAVID WEHNER, an individual,SHARON SANDBURG, an individual, CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual,MICHAEL TODD SCHROEPFER, an individual, JAS ATHWAL, an individual,COLIN STRETCH, an individual, JAN KOUM, an individual, DAVIDFISCHER, an individual, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants,Case No. 2:16-cv-02683 (D. Nev., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks statutorypenalties, actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and anyadditional legal or equitable relief the Court deems appropriateas a result of damages caused by Defendants' alleged federalsecurities law violations and false and/or misleading statementsand/or material omissions.

According to the complaint, on May 2014, Facebook introduced newadvertising and content "metrics" designed to, among other things,to help advertisers "better understand how people respond to[their] videos on Facebook", to measure results from its paidadvertising products, and to allow advertisers to measure theperformance of their Facebook ads and campaigns. Facebook toutedits advertising metrics as a valuable tool for measuring thesuccess of paid advertisements, but had no third-party toindependently monitor or evaluate the data derived from theadvertising metrics, or to verify the accuracy of the metricsdata, despite heavy criticism from ad companies to be moretransparent. On or about April, 2015, Facebook internally began todiscover errors with the calculation of the advertising andcontent metrics, but concealed such information from the publicand failed to include it in SEC filings. With knowledge of thefaulty metrics, the Individual Defendants began selling offsubstantial shares in Facebook at a profit. On or about September17, 2015, Facebook announced that it would let ad companiesutilize third-party software from analytics firm, Moat, Inc., toanalyze ad metrics on Facebook. On December 1, 2015, IndividualDefendants began implementing a plan to liquidate their Facebookstock while also maintaining majority voting power via a three toone stock split. Class A and Class B shareholders would receivetwo additional share of a new Class C stock that holds no votingpower.

Facebook is an American for-profit corporation and online socialmedia and social networking service based in Menlo Park,California, United States.

Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and Chief Executive Officer ofFacebook, and during the Class Period sold millions of shares ofthe Company, while in possession of adverse undisclosedinformation about the Company.

FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Settlement Checks Distributed-------------------------------------------------------------David Bixenspan, writing for Law Newz, reports that you may havenoticed something unexpected in your mailbox (the real, physicalone by your house): A letter with a return address from "Fraley v.Facebook Inc." When you open it, you'll find a $15 check inside.To answer your questions, yes, it's real, no, there are no stringsattached, and yes, you signed up for it. You just don't rememberthat you did.

Here's what the genuine article looks like so you can be sure thatit's what you got in the mail:

Fraley v. Facebook is a class action lawsuit that was filed overfive and a half years ago on April 4, 2011. It concerned"sponsored stories" that used Facebook members' names and photosin advertisements without their permission. In August 2012,Facebook agreed to a $20 million settlement, but the judgerejected it, saying that the number was something that the socialnetworking company "plucked out of thin air." A deadline forFacebook users to opt into the case was set for May 2, 2013, andthree months later, the $20 million settlement was approved afterthe judge was satisfied that it was the subject of negotiationbetween both sides.

Third parties kept the case tied up in appeals for years, butthose were finally cleared up in January, freeing up the transferof all of the money for the class members. Now, finally, thelawyers were able to send out your $15 check that you don'tremember signing up for three and a half years ago. Spend it onsomething nice.

FANDUEL: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration in Antitrust Case-------------------------------------------------------------Darren Heitner, writing for Forbes, reports that the sportsbusiness news of the week was likely that FanDuel and DraftKingshave agreed to terms on a merger, which is expected to close atthe end of 2017 as long as it passes antitrust scrutiny. One ofthe major causes for the transaction is that each company hasspent millions of dollars in legal and lobbying fees over the pastyear to fight against lawsuits and push new legislation that clearlegalizes their operations. The theory is that, as one entity,costs may be saved on both fronts.

One major ongoing battle is a consolidated class action pending inMassachusetts federal court against FanDuel and DraftKings, whichincludes more than twenty consumer protection claims. InSeptember, FanDuel and DraftKings each argued that the litigationshould be dismissed and sent to arbitration, as each companycontains an arbitration clause in its respective terms andconditions. That argument was reinforced by way of filing motionsto compel arbitration.

The motions cite to case law that says the Federal Arbitration Actembodies the national policy favoring arbitration and placesarbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts,and notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has directed that courtsmust rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate. They believethat their respective terms of use contain enforceable arbitrationprovisions, which require the court to kick the claims to anarbitrator.

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Faces Mergers-Related Class Suit in Maryland---------------------------------------------------------------Farmland Partners Inc. is facing a shareholder class actionlawsuit arising from proposed mergers with American FarmlandCompany and American Farmland Company L.P., according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On September 12, 2016, the Company, the Operating Partnership andcertain of their respective subsidiaries entered into a definitiveagreement and plan of merger (the "AFCO Merger Agreement") withAmerican Farmland Company ("AFCO") and American Farmland CompanyL.P. ("AFCO OP"). Pursuant to the terms of the AFCO MergerAgreement, one of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries willmerge with and into AFCO OP with AFCO OP surviving as a whollyowned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership (the "PartnershipMerger"), and AFCO will merge with and into another one of theCompany's wholly owned subsidiaries with such wholly ownedsubsidiary surviving (the "Company Merger" and together with thePartnership Merger, the "AFCO Mergers"). The Mergers are expectedto close in first quarter of 2017.

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed inthe Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against AFCO,seeking to represent a proposed class of all AFCO stockholderscaptioned Parshall v. American Farmland Company et al., Case No.24C16005745. The complaint names as defendants AFCO, the membersof AFCO's board of directors, AFCO OP, the Company, the OperatingPartnership, Farmland Partners OP GP LLC, FPI Heartland LLC, FPIHeartland Operating Partnership, LP and FPI Heartland GP LLC. Thecomplaint alleges that the AFCO directors breached their duties toAFCO in connection with the evaluation and approval of the AFCOMergers. In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things,that AFCO, AFCO OP, the Company, Farmland Partners OP GP LLC, FPIHeartland LLC, FPI Heartland Operating Partnership, LP and FPIHeartland GP LLC aided and abetted those breaches of duties. Thecomplaint seeks equitable relief, including a potential injunctionagainst the AFCO Mergers. The deadline for an answer or otherresponsive pleading by the defendants has not yet passed.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are withoutmerit and intends to defend against those allegations.

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estatecompany that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality farmlandlocated in agricultural markets throughout North America. TheCompany was incorporated in Maryland on September 27, 2013. TheCompany is the sole member of the general partner of FarmlandPartners Operating Partnership, LP, which was formed in Delawareon September 27, 2013. As of September 30, 2016, the Companyowned a portfolio of approximately 114,119 acres which areconsolidated in these financial statements.

Larry Mungiello, Robert Chabak, and Rocco Notarfrancesco wereemployed by Federal Express in New Jersey as couriers. FederalExpress terminated Mungiello on August 31, 2005; Notarfrancesco onApril 28, 2008; and Chabak on July 10, 2008.

On February 22, 2006, Mungiello and Notarfrancesco opted into aproposed class action suit filed by three other couriers againstFederal Express for alleged violations of the Age Discriminationin Employment Act (ADEA). The suit was captioned Clausnitzer v.Fed. Express Corp., SA CV 05-1269 DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.). Chabakjoined them on May 15, 2007.

On October 19, 2007, the federal district court denied thecouriers' motion for class certification and dismissed the claimsof the opt-in plaintiffs, including Mungiello, Chabak, andNotarfrancesco, without prejudice. The plaintiffs in Clausnitzerfiled an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the pendency of the appeal, the same attorney who hadrepresented the Clausnitzer plaintiffs filed a virtually identicalproposed class action on March 20, 2008 captioned Hulac v. Fed.Express Corp., SA CV 08-4449 DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.). Mungiello,Chabak, and Notarfrancesco were all named plaintiffs in the Hulaclitigation.

The district court conducted a status conference on August 23,2012, where the parties entered into a "stipulation." Theplaintiffs agreed to dismiss "[t]he ADEA collective claim and theERISA class claim" with prejudice. They further agreed that"[t]he individual claims of all plaintiffs other than the firstnamed plaintiff, Fred Hulac, will be dismissed without prejudice."Significantly, the stipulation did not provide that FederalExpress waived its right to assert a statute of limitationsdefense in any future proceeding.

On October 9, 2012, Mungiello and Chabak filed a complaint in theLaw Division alleging, for the first time, that Federal Expressdiscriminated against them on the basis of their age, subjectedthem to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against them inviolation of the Law Against Discrimination. On June 9, 2014,Judge Charles Powers, Jr. granted Mungiello and Chabak's motion toamend the complaint to add Notarfrancesco "as a party plaintiff."

On January 5, 2015, Federal Express moved for summary judgment,arguing that the plaintiffs' LAD claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims. Theplaintiffs responded by asserting that the time to file their LADclaims had been "tolled" by their participation in the prospectiveclass actions in the Clausnitzer and Hulac matters.

Following oral argument on February 20, 2015, Judge Powersrendered a comprehensive written opinion, granting FederalExpress' motion for summary judgment and dismissing theplaintiffs' complaint as untimely.

The judge concluded that the two-year LAD limitations period wassubject to tolling because all three plaintiffs participated inprior proceedings in which class certification was sought, and inwhich the ADEA claims raised were substantially similar to theirLAD claims.

However, the judge also explained that the tolling period endswhen class certification is denied or when it becomes evident thatcertification is futile or will not be pursued, and that aplaintiff cannot extend the tolling period by filing a second,substantially similar class action complaint after classcertification is denied in a prior action in which he or she hasparticipated. Thus, the judge held that the plaintiffs'subsequent participation in the Hulac litigation did not continueto toll their LAD claims. In other words, the plaintiffs' LADclaims were only tolled until the question of class certificationwas determined.

For Mungiello, the judge found that the limitations period wastolled beginning on February 22, 2006, when Mungiello opted intothe Clausnitzer litigation, but ended on October 19, 2007, whenclass certification was denied in Clausnitzer. The judge alsofound that tolling ended for Chabak and Notarfrancesco on December7, 2009, when seeking class certification in Hulac became futile.Thus, Judge Powers concluded that Mungiello and Chabak's October9, 2012 LAD complaint was filed well beyond the expiration of thetwo-year statute of limitations, and Notarfrancesco's decision tojoin the litigation in June 2014 was even more out of time.

The Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed substantially for thereasons expressed in Judge Powers thoughtful February 20, 2015written opinion. The Superior Court was satisfied that JudgePowers properly granted summary judgment to Federal Express andcorrectly dismissed the complaint on statute of limitationsgrounds.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 21, 2016 opinion isavailable at https://is.gd/AUEzMf from Leagle.com.

FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval--------------------------------------------------------------The agreement to settle the debit transaction sequencinglitigation has received preliminary approval, according to FirstHorizon National Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

First Tennessee Bank National Association (FTBNA) is a defendantin a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft feescharged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim isthat the method used to order or sequence the transactions postedeach day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. FirstTennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court forShelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. In July 2016 FHNand the plaintiff submitted a notice of proposed settlement to thecourt, which later received preliminary approval by the court. Theproposed settlement remains subject to an extended approvalprocess which FHN estimates will be completed in the first half of2017.

The Company says the material loss contingency liability mentionedabove includes an amount for this matter based on FHN's assessmentof the settlement.

The class action, filed on Sept. 20 in New York federal court,claims Hershey's falsely advertises the amount of candy in its 12ounce bags of Kisses. Plaintiff Christopher Huppert says somebags of Hershey's Kisses (for instance Kisses with almonds)contain less than 12 ounces of candy but are sold for the sameprice as the 12 ounce classic bag of milk chocolate Kisses.

The discrepancy in ounces stated on the bag and the actual weightof the candy violates New York's Consumer Protection Act, healleges.

Jennifer Sniderman, director of strategic communications atHershey's, says "There is no merit to this suit."

"Hershey's packaging fully complies with all state and federallaws," she added.

According to the complaint, "Hershey's has reduced the contents ofthe 'Classic Bags' for Hershey's kisses Milk Chocolate withAlmonds by 8%, and under-filled the bags with only 11 ounces (netweight) of Kisses."

It claims the cookies n' creme bags only have 10.5 ounces ofKisses, but the price is the same as that of the classic 12 ouncebags of classic Kisses.

As a result, "Defendant has engaged in an unfair and deceptivebusiness practice that has the capacity, tendency, and effect ofdeceiving reasonable consumers who purchase the products," thecomplaint claims.

According to the complaint, "Defendant has engaged in a systematiccourse of misrepresenting the products to consumers." Theplaintiff claims the packaging violates section 349 of the NewYork General Business Law.

Mr. Huppert also claims that Hershey's violates New York's section350 of General Business Law, which defines false advertising as"advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the kind,character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity ifsuch advertising is misleading in a material respect."

Mr. Huppert, and prospective class members, are seeking to recovertheir actual damages, or $50, for each alleged violation. He alsoseeks triple damages and attorneys fees.

Ms. Sniderman, however, states that "The label of every Hersheyproduct clearly and accurately states the weight of the product inthe package for consumers to read at the time of purchase."

Hershey's milk chocolate Kisses have been a company staple since1907. In recent years, the company has expanded the line ofindividually wrapped chocolates to include Hershey's with almonds,cookies n' creme, dark chocolate, mint, hugs and more.

Judge Cathy Seibel has granted Hershey's an extension of time torespond to the complaint. Its answer was due on Nov. 22.

HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Somalia Veterans File Mefloquine Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports thatpoliticians of all stripes are asking the federal Health Ministerto take another look at the potentially harmful effects of ananti-malarial drug that some veterans say permanently damagedtheir brains and contributed to the violence that erupted duringthe Somalia mission of the early 1990s.

At the same time, a proposed class-action lawsuit launched againstthe manufacturer of mefloquine and the Defence Department onbehalf of veterans who say they still suffer repercussions fromthe pills they were forced to take on overseas deployments hasbeen given new life as more former soldiers step forward to saythey too were harmed.

The controversy around mefloquine, a drug marketed as Lariam thatis still being offered to Canadian troops when they are sent tocountries where malaria is prevalent, has been brewing since 1992when a Somali teenager was beaten to death by Canadian soldiers.Veterans of the mission blame the drug for psychological damagethat may have caused the aggressive behaviour.

The Commons Veterans Affairs committee, which is studying mentalhealth and suicide prevention among former military personnel,wrote to Health Minister Jane Philpott to request that "theeffects of the anti-Malaria drug mefloquine be examined in greaterdetail."

The committee heard this fall from several veterans who toldheart-wrenching stories about what they describe as the after-effects of the medicine including tinnitus, psychosis, paranoiaand an inability to control their tempers. The testimony shockedsome MPs and moved at least one to tears.

"I write to you in my capacity as chair in order to bring forwardthe concerns raised with regard to the historic and continuing useof mefloquine as an anti-malarial prophylaxis," Liberal MP NeilEllis wrote in the letter to Dr. Philpott.

Chief among the concerns raised at the committee hearings, wroteMr. Ellis, were "neuropsychiatric reactions, questions overlabelling and prescribing practices, paucity of empirical andpeer-reviewed scientific evidence concerning neurotoxicity, anddifficulties in finding potential treatment plans for those thatmay have persistent and lasting adverse symptomatology that couldpotentially be linked to the use of mefloquine."

When asked for her response to the letter, Dr. Philpott's staffturned the matter over to communications staff within the healthdepartment who said: "Health Canada continues to monitor thesafety of mefloquine and will take action as necessary to makesure the benefits continue to outweigh its risks."

It wasn't until August of this year -- three years after similarwarnings were issued in the United States -- that Health Canadaposted a notice saying the drug can cause adverse neuropsychiatricreactions "that have been reported to continue many years aftermefloquine has been stopped" and that "permanent vestibular damagehas been seen in some cases."

A group of veterans is now calling for an inquiry into what rolethe medication might have played in Somalia, and for thegovernment to contact troops or veterans who were required to takemefloquine to determine if they suffered long-term consequences.They also want more research to develop better diagnosis andtreatment of the effects.

Meanwhile, as in Britain, Australia and the United States, someCanadian veterans are turning to the courts.

Hooters' argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to bringa TCPA claim because he had not suffered an injury in fact, aconstitutional threshold requirement reinforced by the Spokeodecision. According to Hooters' argument, Plaintiff merelyalleged that he had been the victim of a procedural violation ofthe TCPA namely, the receipt of a single text messageadvertisement after withdrawal of consent. The Court rejectedthis argument, however, reasoning that Congress has determinedthat receipt of even one call to one's cellphone without consentis a sufficiently particularized injury for standing purposes,specifically noting that an invasion of privacy or any time wastedreading the text message is an adequately concrete injury.

A distinct split in authority is taking root in the aftermath ofthe Spokeo decision, particularly within the TCPA lawsuit space.Some courts have found that simply alleging receipt of calls inviolation of the TCPA, without more, is insufficient to survive aSpokeo challenge. However, others, like the court that ruledagainst Hooters, have been inclined to find that receipt of such atext message is precisely the injury that Congress intended toremedy through passage of the TCPA, and thus sufficient for Spokeopurposes. It is, nevertheless, apparent that the relativestrength of Spokeo-based challenges to TCPA claims will continueto remain unsettled and in flux until such time as SCOTUS ispresented with an opportunity to revisit the issue.

Protect Your Business Against a TCPA Lawsuit

Klein Moynihan Turco LLP has written extensively about increasedinterest, from regulators and class action attorneys alike, intelemarketing calls and text messages placed to cell phones.Having lost its Spokeo-based challenge, and a related challenge tothe sufficiency of the class claims at issue, Hooters could beexposed to hundreds of millions of dollars in liability. Thisshould serve to reinforce the notion that, in today's regulatoryenvironment, it is imperative to have telemarketing practices andprocedures examined by experienced counsel in order to avoidpotentially disastrous consequences in the event that a classaction plaintiff or federal regulator brings a TCPA lawsuit foralleged telemarketing-related violations.

HSBC USA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Silver Fix Suit Granted in Part----------------------------------------------------------------The Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidatedcomplaint was granted in part and denied in part in October 2016in the matter entitled In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. AntitrustLitigation (Silver Fix Litigation), according to HSBC USA Inc.'sForm 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company andan indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America HoldingsInc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBCHoldings plc.

HSBC USA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hill" Madoff-Related Suit----------------------------------------------------------------HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016, that in September 2016, the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York granted theHSBC defendants' motion to dismiss in Stephen and Leyla Hill, etal. v. HSBC Bank plc, et al. (Case No. 14-CV-9745(LTS)), which isa part of Madoff Litigation.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company andan indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America HoldingsInc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBCHoldings plc.

HSBC USA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Toss Amended Gold Fix Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidatedcomplaint was granted in part and denied in part in October 2016in the matter captioned In re Commodity Exchange Inc., GoldFutures and Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation),according to HSBC USA Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company andan indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America HoldingsInc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBCHoldings plc.

HSBC USA: Faces Class Suit in New York by Indirect FX Purchasers----------------------------------------------------------------HSBC USA Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit in NewYork brought by "indirect" foreign exchange purchasers, accordingto the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

In September 2016, a new lawsuit alleging federal and stateantitrust claims was filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York by "indirect" FX purchasers whoinvested in funds that engaged in FX-related transactions. Theaction purports to assert claims for New York and California sub-classes under state law and has been assigned to the judgeoverseeing the pending FX class action settlement.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company andan indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America HoldingsInc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBCHoldings plc.

HSBC USA: Has Final Approval of Checking Account Overdraft Deal---------------------------------------------------------------HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016, that the court issued an order inOctober 2016 granting final approval of the settlement in theChecking Account Overdraft Litigation

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company andan indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America HoldingsInc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBCHoldings plc.

In October 2016, the court granted the Hong Kong and ShanghaiBanking Company's motion to dismiss, having previously granted inpart and denied in part HSBC Bank USA's motion.

HSBC USA Inc. is a New York State-based bank holding company andan indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America HoldingsInc., which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBCHoldings plc.

The Defendants' ongoing effort comprises a proposedrecapitalization of the Company's capital structure byestablishing a new non-voting class of capital stock, which willbe known as Class C common stock. The Class C common stock willhave no voting rights. As explained in the Company's ProxyStatement, Class C common stock, of which there will be600,000,000 authorized shares, will provide IAC with what theBoard describes as "acquisition currency", enabling the Company toundertake strategic transactions without compromising Diller andhis family members' control. Indeed, the Board acknowledges in theProxy Statement that Recapitalization will enable futureacquisitions free of "any potential inhibition on the willingnessof the Diller Parties to support the use of common equity foracquisitions", given that issuances of either IAC common stock orClass B common stock would reduce the Diller Parties' votingcontrol. Due to its benefits to the Diller Parties, Diller, who isalso the Company's Chairman and Senior Executive (the most seniormanagement position at the Company), proposed the creation of theClass C common stock to the Board in April 2016. The Board thenformed a "Special Committee", consisting of defendants EdgarBronfman, Jr., Chelsea Clinton, Michael Eisner, Bonnie Hammer,Bryan Lourd, David Rosenblatt, Alan Spoon, and Richard F. Zanninoto consider this proposal. Ultimately, the Special Committeerecommended this proposal to the full Board, which approved it.The Special Committee, however, failed to obtain anything ofmeaningful value from the Diller Parties in exchange for theextraordinarily valuable benefit that the Reclassification willbestow upon them.

AC is a media and Internet company with more than 150 brands andproducts serving consumer audiences.

Wood River attorney Thomas Maag filed the class action onOct. 15, 2015, for plaintiff Gary Patrick Sterr, who says he wascharged the extra dollar as a convenience fee through the IllinoisE-pay program for processing applications online.

Firearms Services Bureau chief Jessica Trame and IllinoisTreasurer Michael Frerichs are named defendants in the suit. Theyare represented by Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

In his complaint, Mr. Maag argues that statute 430 ILCS 65/5expressly states that the FOID fee is $10.

By charging an additional $1, he claims Ms. Trame is unilaterallyimposing a 10 percent surcharge on FOID cards without statutoryauthority.

He further claims it is impossible to get a FOID card withoutpaying the extra fee on top of the $10 mandatory cost (except forcertain members of the military who are exempt all together)because the Firearms Services Bureau stopped accepting paperapplications that allowed people to mail $10 checks or moneyorders.

"Defendants have charged a minimum of ten thousand people, andpossibly substantially more, well into the hundreds of thousandsor millions of class members," Mr. Maag wrote.

In 2011, the state received 321,000 FOID applications, he wrote.

Mr. Maag notes that in order to lawfully possess a firearm inIllinois, "it is generally required to have in a person'spossession a currently valid" FOID card.

The plaintiff also asked the court to certify the case as a classaction. Mr. Maag seeks to represent a class including anyone whoapplied for a FOID card any time in 2015 and who paid a fee inexcess of $10.

Justice Trame and Mr. Frerichs objected to the class definition intheir April 15 response to Mr. Sterr's motion for classcertification. They argue that the proposed class definition istoo vague and potentially overbroad. They ask that the class bemore specifically defined.

The defendants proposed a class certification to include "allpersons who applied for a Firearm Owners Identification card fromMarch 15, 2015, through and including the date of final judgment,and paid a $1.00 payment processing service fee in addition to a$10.00 application fee upon submission of that application."

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-1337

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Appeals $15-Bil. Ruling in Smokers' Suit----------------------------------------------------------Paul Cherry, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the judgewho ordered three tobacco companies to pay more than $15 billionin damages to Quebec smokers for damaging their health created hisown law in the process, a lawyer for the companies argued at theQuebec Court of Appeal.

Simon Potter was the first lawyer to make arguments on Nov. 21 inwhat was scheduled to be an unusually long five-day hearing beforethe appellate court.

Mr. Potter argued that Superior Court Justice Brian Riordan'sdecision in June 2015 contains "clear errors of law" and a "newstandard of causation" that does not exist in Canadian law.

Justice Riordan found Imperial Tobacco Canada, JTI-Macdonald Corp.and Rothman, Benson Hedges Inc. liable for disease and addictionsuffered by more than one million Quebecers over a nearly 50-yearperiod. Mr. Potter argued the decision did not offer evidencethat the people included in the class action were unaware of therisks involved with smoking before they developed health problems.

"Cause isn't found through common sense. Cause is found throughevidence," Mr. Potter told the five judges who are hearing theappeal. "It's difficult to parse out what standard of causationthe judge did use.

"Our clients are stuck with a liability that is based onconjecture."

Mr. Potter also criticized the methods Justice Riordan used todetermine how many people should be eligible to receive damages.

"We're in a situation where we have an enormous net and there area lot of people who shouldn't be in it," Mr. Potter said.

Justice Riordan's decision involved two class-action suits. Onegroup involved 100,000 smokers and ex-smokers who had developedlung cancer, throat cancer or emphysema. The other grouprepresented 918,000 addicted smokers, but only those who developeddisease will get a financial award.

Mario Bujold, the director general of the Conseil quebecois sur letabac et la sante, a plaintiff in the class action, said outsidecourt the delay caused by the appeal is preventing people who haveserious health problems from having access to what the courtawarded them.

"That's the sad part of it. We're talking about victims of theproducts of the tobacco companies who have been waiting 18 yearsfor justice to be rendered, and all they can do is wait again. I'msad for that because those are sick people who have been waitingtoo long."

"The tobacco companies are saying we didn't have evidence to provethat if the companies gave more information (on the risksinvolved) to the customer there would less smokers. They refuseto admit there is a fault there. But at the same time when youlook at how they react to having to issue every new warning, youcan really see how that has an impact. The type of warning has animpact on smokers. That's the heart of the whole trial."

Lawyers for the Conseil quebecois sur le tabac et la sante wereset to make their arguments.

JAKKS PACIFIC: California Court Dismisses "Melot"-------------------------------------------------JAKKS Pacific, Inc., on Nov. 22 announced that the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California ordered thedismissal with prejudice all of the claims asserted in theconsolidated action captioned John Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. etal., Case No.-LA CV13-05388 JAK (SSx), a putative class actionthat commenced in July 2013.

JAMES HARDIE: Cladding Class Action Begins in NZ High Court-----------------------------------------------------------NZCity reports that building owners taking part in a $250 millioncladding class action against James Hardie had packed thecourtroom gallery for the start of interlocutory applications inthe High Court at Auckland.

The action involves 1,100 Auckland leaky building owners, backedby litigation funders, who are making negligence claims againstvarious James Hardie group companies for failure of fibre cementcladding products.

The case relates to buildings spanning the time period 1983 to2010 and all but four of them are residential properties.

The plaintiffs allege they have suffered financial losses andsignificant health issues arising from the use of non-performingcladding materials marketed as Harditex, Monotek, and Titan board.

In October the High Court ruled that 15 new plaintiffs could jointhe action, a decision opposed by James Hardie.

The three legs of the plaintiffs' claim are that there wasnegligence in the design, development, manufacture, and promotionof the cladding products, that they should have been withdrawnwhen the company realised there were problems, and that there werebreaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act.

Lawyers representing the James Hardie group of companies areseeking to have two of the seven defendant companies removed fromthe claim under a summary judgment application because they weresimply holding companies in New Zealand and Australia, with sharesin the operational units.

Mark O'Brien QC, representing the plaintiffs, said the holdingcompanies owed a "duty of care" to the plaintiffs becauseHarditex, which is the product involved in most of the claims, wasdesigned and developed by the James Hardie group, not just the NewZealand subsidiaries. The New Zealand company shared commondirectors with the Australian parents, and still do.

"They owed a direct duty of care, they breached it, and shouldmake good," he said.

Mr. O'Brien told the High Court that the issues facing the leakybuilding owners were not isolated. In October, owners of leakybuildings in Wellington were given High Court permission to pursuea $25 million representative action against the building materialsfirm.

Drugmaker Janssen Pharmaceuticals recently filed notices in morethan 100 cases pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleasindicating it removed the cases to federal court. Although thecopies of the notices of removal were filed in state court on Nov.17, the notices were initially filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early November.Janssen has pointed to the Class Action Fairness Act as the basisfor removal to federal court.

"Plaintiffs' counsel have filed more than 100 lawsuits inPhiladelphia County and have proposed that the claims beconsolidated and tried together in a mass tort proceeding in statecourt," a spokeswoman for Janssen said in an emailed statement."Exercising the rights provided by the Class Action Fairness Act,we have removed the cases to federal court."

A notice filed in Portnoff v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals said thecase was one of 106 cases that the drugmaker sought to remove tofederal court pursuant to CAFA. According to the filing, theprimary objective of that act is to ensure federal courts canconsider "interstate cases of national importance."

"The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has original subject-matterjurisdiction over these actions because, together, they constitutea 'mass action,'" said the notice, which was filed by Gregory T.Sturges -- sturgesg@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig.

The move by Janssen comes as the plaintiffs have asked thePhiladelphia court to consolidate the litigation into a mass tortprogram.

In September, the plaintiffs filed a petition to consolidate 87cases over Invokana are pending in the venue. The firms handlingthe suits said they expected that number to at least double soon.The petition said the claims are virtually identical, andconsolidation would increase the efficiency of the litigation.The suits all claim that the diabetes drug causes kidney failureand a condition called diabetic ketoacidosis, which is caused bythe buildup of acids in the blood.

Along with alleging that defendants Janssen Pharmaceuticals andMitsubishi Tanabe Pharmaceuticals failed to warn and improperlymarketed the drug, plaintiffs are also alleging Invokana wasdefectively designed because it prevents the body frommetabolizing excess glucose by directing it to be excreted throughthe kidneys.

JERICHO OIL: Named Defendant in Okla. Earthquake Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Reuters reports that Jericho Oil Oklahoma Corp has been named asone of 27 defendants in class action petition filed in districtcourt of Pawnee County Oklahoma

No specific damage amount is alleged in the action.

The petition alleges that named oil and gas companies caused man-made earthquakes through disposal of fracking wastewater.

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself, and other similarly-situated current and former hourly employees who worked for theDefendants, individually and/or jointly, and who elect to optinto this action pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, that she and theyare: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendants for working morethan forty hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate ofat least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such hoursover forty in a week, and (ii) entitled to maximum liquidateddamages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendant is a small organization in the health and alliedservices industry located in Astoria, New York.

Three workers also claim the Meekers have pressured currentemployees to not join a proposed class-action suit.

The restaurant has denied the allegations. However, lawyerDouglas Diaz, a Haddonfield attorney, did not respond to a callfrom PhillyVoice seeking comment.

Both sides were to present oral arguments before a federal judgein Camden.

Dan Keashen, a spokesman for Camden County, said while themanagement of the Cooper House is not precisely the same as theKeg n Kitchen, the county is aware of the suit's allegationsinvolving Mr. Meeker, who is deeply involved in management of theCooper House.

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Approval of Rights-of-Way Suit Deal-----------------------------------------------------------------Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to seek approval ofsettlement in the remaining two states in the Rights-of-WayLitigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company is party to a number of purported class actionlawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable networkin railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. Ingeneral, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networksfrom railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed itsnetworks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in thepurported class actions assert that they are the owners of landsover which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that therailroads, utilities and others who granted the Company the rightto construct and maintain its network did not have the legalauthority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories oftrespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, aswell as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and mayin the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-wayissues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based onsimilar or different legal theories. The Company has defeatedmotions for class certification in a number of these actions butexpects that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs inthe pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification ofstatewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which aclass was certified against the Company, absent an agreed uponsettlement, occurred in Koyle, et al. v. Level 3 Communications,Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in theUnited States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koylelawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached inNovember 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting allpersons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights ofway in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. TheUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts inKingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminaryapproval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of thesettlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matterjurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement termsfor a series of state class settlements affecting all persons whoown or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in whichthe Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. TheCompany is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement inapplicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current andformer landowners, have received final federal court approval inall but one of the applicable states and the parties are activelyengaged in, or have completed, the claims process for the vastmajority of the applicable states, including payment of claims.The Company continues to seek approval in the remaining twostates.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses tothe claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defendthem vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimatelyapproved for all affected landowners.

Level 3 Communications, Inc., is an international facilities-basedprovider (that is, a provider that owns or leases a substantialportion of the plant, property and equipment necessary to provideits services) of a broad range of integrated communicationsservices. The Company created its communications network byconstructing its own assets and through a combination ofpurchasing other companies and purchasing or leasing facilitiesfrom others. The Company designed its network to providecommunications services that employ and take advantage of rapidlyimproving underlying optical, Internet Protocol, computing andstorage technologies.

LIFE PARTNERS: Creditors Trust to Handle Class Action Settlements-----------------------------------------------------------------Life Partners Holdings, Inc.'s Confirmed Plan of Reorganizationprovides that the Life Partners Creditors' Trust will be formed toimplement the provisions of the Plan, including to pursuelitigation, and to implement Class Action Settlement Agreement andthe MDL Settlement Agreement, according to the Company's Form 8-Kfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016.

On October 27, 2016, Life Partners Holdings, Inc., et al.(Debtors) filed the proposed Revised Third Amended Joint Plan ofReorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,Docket No. 3427 (the "Plan"). The Plan incorporates by referencecertain documents filed with the Bankruptcy Court as part of thePlan Supplement filed August 2, 2016, Docket No. 2856.

On November 1, 2016, following an evidentiary hearing onconfirmation of the Plan held over a five week period beginningAugust 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order, Docket No.3439 (the "Confirmation Order"), confirming the Plan.

Pursuant to the Plan, Life Partners Creditors' Trust (the"Creditors' Trust") will (a) pursue litigation and other Causes ofAction assigned to it under the Plan, the Class Action SettlementAgreement, the MDL Settlement Agreement, and any other settlementagreements or assignments, and (b) distribute the net proceedscollected to its beneficiaries. The Confirmation Order approvedthe selection of Alan M. Jacobs to serve as the Trustee of theCreditors' Trust (the "Creditors' Trust Trustee"). Thebeneficiaries of the Creditors' Trust shall include all Holders ofAllowed Claims as General Unsecured Creditors, including but notlimited to all Current Position Holders who make the Creditors'Trust Election and all Former Position Holders, and certainInvestors pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement andthe MDL Settlement Agreement.

On the Effective Date, the Creditors' Trust Governing Trust Boardshall be formed pursuant to the Creditors' Trust Agreement, andwill be comprised of the same individuals who serve as the membersof the Trust Board for the Position Holder Trust. Pursuant to theConfirmation Order, Messrs. Scalzo, Trimble, Redus, Loy, and Evanshave been approved to serve as the members of the Trust Board forthe Creditors' Trust.

In accordance with the Class Action Settlement Agreement, theClass Claim shall be Allowed as a Class B2A Allowed Claim in anaggregate amount equal to the total of all of the amountsscheduled for each outstanding Fractional Position on LPI'sBankruptcy Schedule F, as amended, as neither disputed,contingent, nor unliquidated, and then allocated among theFractional Positions held by Class B2A Holders in accordance withthe amounts, if any, set forth next to each respective FractionalInterest Holder's name on Schedule F. Solely for purposes of thePlan and subject to the effectiveness of the Plan and the ClassAction Settlement Agreement, any Proof of Claim or Interest ofeach Fractional Interest Holder in Class B2A shall be expresslydeemed to have been compromised and exchanged for the treatmentunder this Plan. For Class Members with Disputed Claims due to apending adversary proceeding or otherwise, the provisions ofsection 14.06 of the Plan concerning Distributions are applicable.

The SEC Filing also states that the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Texas have entered its (i) Order (I)Preliminarily Approving the Class Settlement Agreement; (II)Conditionally Certifying the Class and Appointing Class Counseland Class Representatives; (III) Approving the Form and Manner ofNotice to Class Members; (IV) Setting a Deadline for Objections toSuch Preliminary and Conditional Actions; and (V) Scheduling aHearing for the Final Consideration and Approval of Such Actions[Dkt. No. 43 in Case No. 4:16-cv-00212-A] on June 6, 2016 (the"Class Action Preliminary Approval Order"), and (ii) FinalApproval Order (Order Approving Class Settlement Agreement,Certifying Class and Appointing Class Counsel and ClassRepresentatives) [Dkt. No. 143 in Case No. 4:16-cv-00212-A] (the"Class Action Final Approval Order" and together with the ClassAction Preliminary Approval Order, the "Class Action ApprovalOrders") on September 13, 2016.

The defendants The Richmond Organization, Inc. (TRO) and itssubsidiary and imprint Ludlow Music, Inc. possess two copyrightsin the musical composition "We Shall Overcome" (the "Song")registered with the Copyright Office in 1960 and 1963. Theplaintiffs We Shall Overcome Foundation (WSOF) and Butler Films,LLC (Butler) challenged through a putative class action thedefendants' copyright in the Song. The plaintiffs contended,inter alia, that the lyrics to the first verse of the Song arevirtually indistinguishable from a song in the public domain.

In its first claim, the complaint sought a declaratory judgmentthat the Copyright Act does not bestow upon the defendants therights they have asserted against the plaintiffs and othersbecause (1) the two copyright registrations do not cover themelody or "familiar lyrics" to the Song, but instead are limitedat most to arrangements and some of the obscure additional verses,(2) the defendants fraudulently obtained the copyrights, and (3)the copyrights "have been forfeited." The complaint also soughtinjunctive relief and damages. The complaint includes four statelaw claims for violation of New York General Business Law section349; breach of contract; money had and received; and rescissionfor failure of consideration.

The defendants moved to dismiss at least that portion of theamended complaint that challenges their protectable copyrightinterest in the lyrics to the first verse of the Song, and todismiss as well each of the plaintiffs' state law claims. Thedefendants contended that their possession of a copyrightregistration is prima facie evidence of the validity of theircopyright in the Song and that the Court should decide as a matterof law that the changes made to the lyrics in its first verse fromthe version in the public domain reflect sufficient originality towarrant a copyright in the derivative work. They asserted thatthose changes include substituting We for I, Shall for Will, andDeep for Down.

Judge Cote denied the motion to dismiss as to the claims under theCopyright Act.

Judge Cote held that the defendants' argument that the copyrightregistrations are entitled to a presumption of validity does notcompel dismissal of the claims. The judge explained that althougha certificate of registration does constitute prima facie evidenceof the validity of a copyright, that presumption may be rebuttedwhere other evidence casts doubt on the question, such as"evidence that the work was copied from the public domain." Thejudge found that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that thelyrics in the first verse of the Song were copied from material inthe public domain and thus, have adequately pleaded a lack oforiginality and of ownership rights in the said lyrics.

Judge Cote also held that the plaintiffs have plausibly allegedfraud on the Copyright Office. The judge found that theplaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants deliberatelyomitted from their application for a copyright in a derivativework all reference to the public domain spiritual or thepublications of "I Shall Overcome" and "We Shall Overcome" asantecedents to the Song, opting instead to list the previouslyregistered song "I'll Overcome" as the work from which the Songwas derived. The plaintiffs alleged as well that there was aninsufficient basis for listing as authors of the Song the personsidentified in the application.

Lastly, Judge Cote held that the complaint plausibly alleged thatseveral works published after a copyright in the Song was obtainedin 1960 did not include the copyright notice required by the 1909Act. Thus, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs have plausiblyalleged that any copyright obtained by the defendants has beenabrogated under a theory of divestment.

The motion to dismiss the state law claims, however, was grantedon the basis of preemption.

Judge Cote agreed with the defendants that the Copyright Actpreempts the plaintiffs' state law claims. Those claims are formoney had and received, violation of New York General Business Lawsection 349, breach of contract, and rescission for failure ofconsideration. The judge found that the subject matter of theplaintiffs' claims is the Song, which is a type of work that fallswithin the scope of the Copyright Act. The judge also found thatthe rights being asserted through the state law claims areequivalent to a right protected by the Copyright Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Cote's November 21, 2016 correctedopinion and order is available at https://is.gd/vgzu6H fromLeagle.com.

The case is a collective/class action lawsuit filed by a group ofover 20 current or former employees of MTC who claim they were notpaid for some of their hours worked on assignment for MTC at theOtero County Prison Facility near Chaparral, New Mexico. Thelawsuit asserted claims for unpaid wages and overtime, as well asother statutory damages and the recovery of attorneys' fees, underthe Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and/or the New Mexico MinimumWage Act (NMMWA).

MTC sought to dismiss involuntarily and with prejudice Rodarte,Jimenez, Mendoza and Gurrola, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.37(d)(1)(A)and 42(b), because of their failure to appear for theirdepositions and because these plaintiffs are failing to prosecute.

Because it is the first time the court has been called upon toaddress issues involving Rodarte, Jimenez, Mendoza and Gurrola,Judge Johnson gave these particular plaintiffs one opportunity toparticipate in the lawsuit. The judge, however, specified thatthe plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's directives willbe deemed an intentional decision to ignore these directives -- atwhich point dismissal from the lawsuit with prejudice shallresult.

A full-text copy of Judge Johnson's November 21, 2016 memorandumopinion and order is available at https://is.gd/yN5Mha fromLeagle.com.

MARIANI PACKING: Settles Labor Class Action for $400,000--------------------------------------------------------Ryan McCarthy, writing for Daily Republic, reports that asettlement of up to $400,000 has been reached in the class actionlawsuit contending Mariani Packing Company in Vacaville failed topay overtime, provide meal breaks or issue itemized wagestatements.

Mariani denies all allegations but concluded further litigationcould be lengthy and expensive, according to a court document.

A Mariani representative could not be reached for comment on thesettlement on Nov. 22.

Solano County Superior Court Judge Michael Mattice signed an orderNov. 2 granting a motion for preliminary approval of thesettlement.

An attorney for Maria Navarro, who worked at the packing companyfrom 1999 to 2014, filed the case in September 2015 on behalf ofNavarro and other employees. Ms. Navarro first asserted herclaims in a July 2015 letter to the California Labor and WorkforceDevelopment Agency, according to court documents.

Mariani's website states that for four generations in Californiathe company has grown, dried, processed and packaged dried fruitsnacks. Paul Mariani, the immigrant son of a European farmer,arrived in the Santa Clara Valley in 1906 and planted fruit treeson 4 acres, according to the website.

Mariani was later the first to introduce moist, ready-to-eat driedfruit sold in a clear "see-through" package, the website adds.

In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)transferred seven class action cases from various districts inCalifornia to the District of Nevada as Multidistrict Litigation(MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside. Since then,the JPML has transferred in several more actions from variousdistricts throughout the United States.

The consolidated cases arose out of the energy crisis of 2000-2002. The plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) alleged thatthe defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price ofnatural gas by reporting false information to price indicespublished by trade publications and engaging in wash sales. 40motions were pending before the Court in several of theconsolidated cases. Several of the pending motions were scheduledfor oral argument on December 8, 2016.

Judge Jones ruled on several motions not scheduled for oralargument.

In Case No. 2:05-cv-1331, El Paso LLC (formerly known as El PasoCorp.), Xcel Energy Inc., and Williams Merchant Services Co., LLC(formerly known as Williams Merchant Services Co., Inc.)separately asked the Court to reconsider the defendants' Motionfor Entry of Judgment. The motion was based on the Court'sprevious ruling as to the defendants' release via settlementsreached in the NYMEX litigation in New York. The Court denied themotion for entry of judgment without prejudice, because althoughmost of the moving defendants were entitled to entry of judgmentbased on the release, the Court was unable to find these threeentities listed in the First or Second Settlement Agreements.

Judge Jones reconsidered its denial of the Motion for Entry ofJudgment. The judge found that based on the evidence previouslyadduced, El Paso LLC, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Williams MerchantServices Co., LLC were in fact released via the First and SecondSettlement Agreements in the NYMEX action due to their corporaterelationships to various parties listed therein.

Judge Jones held that even if Judge Pro had found the relevantcorporate relationship, the plaintiffs would still have lacked theevidence necessary to avoid summary judgment in e prime, Inc.'sfavor on the merits. Judge Jones thus denied the motion toreconsider.

The plaintiffs in Case Nos. 2:07-cv-1019 and 2:09-cv-915 asked theCourt to overrule the Magistrate Judge's order of September 13,2016 denying their motion to compel. Judge Jones held that themotion is untimely, having been filed on Friday, September 30,2016, more than 14 days after the September 13, 2016 hearing atwhich the challenged ruling was announced.

Judge Jones also vacated the December 8, 2016 oral argument (dueto the extension of briefing deadlines as to many of the pendingmotions), and directed the parties to contact the Court to arrangea mutually agreeable time for oral argument on the remainingmotions (and any additional dispositive motions filed before theDecember 8, 2016 deadline).

A full-text copy of Judge Jones' November 16, 2016 order isavailable at https://is.gd/wAjm0e from Leagle.com.

MERCK & CO: 1,370 Propecia/Proscar Suits Pending as of Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that approximately1,370 lawsuits have been filed over persistent sexual side effectsfollowing cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar.

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liabilitylawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar.As of September 30, 2016, approximately 1,370 lawsuits have beenfiled by plaintiffs who allege that they have experiencedpersistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatmentwith Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 50 of the plaintiffsalso allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can causeprostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer. Thelawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in statecourt in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidatedfor pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation beforeJudge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matterspending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated beforeJudge Mayer in Middlesex County.

In addition, there is one matter pending in state court inMassachusetts and one matter pending in state court in New York.

MERCK & CO: 285 Femur Cases Pending in Cal. State Ct. at Sept. 30-----------------------------------------------------------------As of September 30, 2016, approximately 285 cases alleging FemurFractures have been filed and are pending in California statecourt, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

As of September 30, 2016, approximately 285 cases alleging FemurFractures have been filed and are pending in California statecourt. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all FemurFracture cases filed in California state court before a singlejudge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted andJudge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinatedproceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery andsubsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffsselected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began in February2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor in April2015, and plaintiff has appealed that verdict to the Californiaappellate court. The next Femur Fracture trial in California thatwas scheduled to begin in April 2016, was stayed at plaintiffs'request and a new trial date has not been set.

MERCK & CO: 2,940 Femur Cases Pending in New Jersey State Court---------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016, that approximately 2,940 casesalleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state courtas of September 30.

As of September 30, 2016, approximately 2,940 cases alleging FemurFractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and arepending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. Theparties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewedthrough fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each tobe reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to bereviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July2015, and Merck has recently begun selecting the next group ofcases to be reviewed through fact discovery.

MERCK & CO: 4,310 Fosamax-Related Cases Pending as of Sept. 30--------------------------------------------------------------As of September 30, 2016, approximately 4,310 cases are filed andpending against Merck & Co., Inc., alleging product liabilityrelating to Fosamax, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filingwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the UnitedStates involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of September 30,2016, approximately 4,310 cases are filed and pending againstMerck in either federal or state court. In approximately 20 ofthese actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that theyhave suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequentto invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dentalimplants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use ofFosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,290 of theseactions generally allege that they sustained femur fracturesand/or other bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association withthe use of Fosamax.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with thePlaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL toresolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL andin the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of thisagreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master SettlementAgreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200plaintiffs. In July 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJMaster Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level of $27.3million since the participation level was approximately 95%. Merckhas fully funded the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and theescrow agent under the agreement has been making settlementpayments to qualifying plaintiffs. The ONJ Master SettlementAgreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures.

MERCK & CO: Defends 1,140 Januvia/Janumet Product User Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc., has been served, as of September 30, 2016,approximately 1,140 product user claims alleging generally thatuse of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreaticcancer and other injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the UnitedStates involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of September 30, 2016,approximately 1,140 product user claims have been served on Merckalleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused thedevelopment of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. Thesecomplaints were filed in several different state and federalcourts.

Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrictlitigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California called "In re Incretin-Based TherapiesProducts Liability Litigation" (MDL). The MDL includes federallawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the followingmedicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two ofwhich are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies.The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in theSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (CaliforniaState Court). As of September 30, 2016, nine product users haveclaims pending against Merck in state courts other than theCalifornia State Court.

In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court -- inseparate opinions -- granted summary judgment to defendants ongrounds of preemption. Of the approximately 1,140 served productuser claims, these rulings resulted in the dismissal ofapproximately 1,100 product user claims.

Plaintiffs are appealing the MDL and California State Courtpreemption rulings.

In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed, asof September 30, 2016, to toll the statute of limitations forapproximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends tocontinue defending against these lawsuits.

MERCK & CO: Defends International Vioxx Suits in Brazil & Europe----------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend litigation relating toVioxx in Brazil and Europe, the Company said in its Form 10-Qfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

As previously disclosed, Merck has been named as a defendant inlitigation relating to Vioxx in Brazil and Europe (collectively,the Vioxx International Lawsuits). The litigation in thesejurisdictions is generally in procedural stages and Merck expectsthat the litigation may continue for a number of years.

The Company says it has established no other liability reservesfor, and believes that it has meritorious defenses to, the VioxxInternational Lawsuits and will vigorously defend against them.

MERCK & CO: Discovery Currently Ongoing in Femur Fractures MDL--------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is ongoing in the multidistrict litigation allegingFemur Fractures, Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Cases Alleging Femur Fractures

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPMLseeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fracturesconsolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinatedpre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of FemurFracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrictlitigation in the District of New Jersey (the Femur Fracture MDL).Judge Pisano presided over the Femur Fracture MDL until March2015, at which time the Femur Fracture MDL was reassigned fromJudge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson following Judge Pisano'sretirement. In the only bellwether case tried to date in the FemurFracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict inMerck's favor. In addition, in June 2013, the Femur Fracture MDLcourt granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law inthe Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claimwas preempted by federal law.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an orderrequiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause whythose cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that tookplace prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed basedon the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant tothe show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL courtdismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemptiongrounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases areappealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit. The Femur Fracture MDL court has since dismissed withoutprejudice another approximately 540 cases pending plaintiffs'appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. On June 30,2016, the Third Circuit heard oral argument on plaintiffs' appealof the preemption ruling and the parties await the decision.

In addition, in June 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summaryjudgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck'supdates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypicalfemur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merckadequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynorhave appealed Judge Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. InAugust 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisanoenter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the FemurFracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequateand the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show causewhy their cases should not be dismissed based on the court'spreemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November2014, the court granted Merck's motion and entered the requestedshow cause order.

As of September 30, 2016, three cases were pending in the FemurFracture MDL, excluding the 515 cases dismissed with prejudice onpreemption grounds that are pending appeal and the 540 casesdismissed without prejudice that are also pending theaforementioned appeal.

Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in otherstate courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courtswhere Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends todefend against these lawsuits.

MERCK & CO: Has Resolved All Vioxx-Related Securities Lawsuits--------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016, that it has resolved all of theVioxx Securities Lawsuits through settlements.

As previously disclosed, in addition to the Vioxx ProductLiability Lawsuits, various putative class actions and individuallawsuits were filed against Merck and certain former employeesalleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws bymaking alleged material misstatements and omissions with respectto the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx (Vioxx Securities Lawsuits).The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits were coordinated in a multidistrictlitigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of NewJersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. As previously disclosed,Merck has reached a resolution of the Vioxx securities classaction for which a reserve was recorded in 2015 and under whichMerck created a settlement fund in 2016 of $830 million (theSettlement Class Fund) and agreed to pay an additional amount forapproved attorneys' fees and expenses up to $232 million (theFee/Expense Fund).

On June 28, 2016, the court approved the settlement and awardedattorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $222 million; theremaining amount of the Fee/Expense Fund will be added to theSettlement Class Fund. The Company paid the total settlementamount into escrow in April 2016. After available funds undercertain insurance policies, Merck's net cash payment for thesettlement and fees was approximately $680 million. The settlementcovers all claims relating to Vioxx by settlement class memberswho purchased Merck securities between May 21, 1999, and October29, 2004. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing and, aspart of the settlement agreement, defendants continue to deny theallegations.

In addition, Merck has reached a resolution of the abovereferenced individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign anddomestic institutional investors, which were also consolidatedwith the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.

As a result of these settlements, Merck has resolved all of theVioxx Securities Lawsuits.

Insurance

As a result of the previously disclosed insurance arbitration, theCompany's insurers paid insurance proceeds of approximately $380million in connection with the settlement of the class action. TheCompany also has Directors and Officers insurance coverageapplicable to the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits with remaining statedupper limits of approximately $145 million, which the Company hasnot received. There are disputes with the insurers about theavailability of the Company's Directors and Officers insurancecoverage for these claims. The amounts actually recovered underthe Directors and Officers policies discussed in this paragraphmay be less than the stated upper limits.

MERCK & CO: Seeks Summary Judgment in K-DUR Antitrust Litigation----------------------------------------------------------------The parties in the K-DUR Antitrust Litigation filed motions toexclude certain expert opinions and the Defendants filed a motionfor summary judgment, Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Qfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

As previously disclosed, in June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation (Schering-Plough) settled patent litigationwith Upsher-Smith, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc.(Lederle), respectively, relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used bycardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filedAbbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). Following thecommencement of an administrative proceeding by the U.S. FederalTrade Commission (FTC) in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effectsfrom those settlements (which was resolved in Schering-Plough'sfavor), putative class and non-class action suits were filed onbehalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR againstSchering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated ina multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federaland state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory andcommon law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages.

In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed theircase. In March 2010, the District Court granted summary judgmentto the defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed thematter in its entirety. In July 2012, the Third Circuit Court ofAppeals reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgmentand remanded the case for further proceedings. At the same time,the Third Circuit upheld a December 2008 decision by the DistrictCourt certifying certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as aclass action.

In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari withthe U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit'sdecision. In June 2013, the Supreme Court granted that petition,vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remanded the casefor further consideration in light of its decision in FTC v.Actavis, Inc. That decision held that whether a so-called "reversepayment" -- i.e., a payment from the holder of a pharmaceuticalpatent to a party challenging the patent made in connection with asettlement of their dispute -- violates the antitrust laws shouldbe determined on the basis of a "rule of reason" analysis. InSeptember 2013, the Third Circuit returned the case to theDistrict Court for further proceedings in accordance with theActavis standard.

In April 2015, the Company filed motions for summary judgment. OnFebruary 25, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motionfor summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers'claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted theCompany's motion for summary judgment relating to all of thedirect purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Lederle.

In anticipation of trial, which is expected to occur in the springof 2017, the parties on October 31, 2016, filed motions to excludecertain expert opinions and defendants filed a motion for summaryjudgment.

MERCK & CO: Has Deals to Settle Vioxx Suits in Alaska, Montana--------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc., has recently reached agreements with theAttorneys General in Alaska and Montana to settle their stateconsumer protection act cases related to Vioxx for $15.25 millionand $16.7 million, respectively, according to the Company's Form10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

Merck was a defendant in a number of putative class actionlawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase ofVioxx, all but one of which have been settled. Under thesettlement, Merck agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve allproperly documented claims submitted by class members, approvedattorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costsand certain other administrative expenses. The claims reviewprocess has been completed with the Company paying approximately$700,000. The amount of attorneys' fees to be paid is yet to bedetermined.

Merck is also a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the AttorneyGeneral of Utah. The lawsuit is pending in Utah state court. Utahalleges that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seeksdamages and penalties under the Utah False Claims Act. No trialdate has been set. Merck recently reached agreements with theAttorneys General in Alaska and Montana to settle their stateconsumer protection act cases against the Company for $15.25million and $16.7 million, respectively. As a result, Alaska'saction was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2016, andMontana's action was dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2016.

The Company says it has an immaterial reserve with respect tocertain Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits. The Company hasestablished no other liability reserves for, and believes that ithas meritorious defenses to, the remaining Vioxx Product LiabilityLawsuits and will vigorously defend against them.

METLIFE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pension Fund Suit------------------------------------------------------Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted in part and denied, in part, themotions to dismiss the third amended complaint in the casecaptioned CITY OF WESTLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,Plaintiff, v. METLIFE, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 12-cv-0256(LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).

The case was brought by Central States, Southeast and SouthwestAreas Pension Fund on behalf of an alleged class of "allpurchasers of the common stock of MetLife, Inc. . . . betweenFebruary 2, 2010 and October 6, 2011, inclusive," and "all personswho purchased or acquired MetLife common stock pursuant ortraceable to [MetLife's] August 3, 2010 public offering of 75million shares of its common stock and MetLife's March 4, 2011public offering of 68.5 million shares of its common stock,respectively". Central States allegedly purchased shares ofMetLife common stock on August 3, 2010, March 3, 2011, and March4, 2011.

The principal issue in the putative class action is "whetherMetLife misled investors (1) with respect to its financialperformance and position because certain reserves underlying itsfinancial statements failed adequately to take account of incurredbut not reported (IBNR) death benefit claims with respect to grouplife insurance policies, and (2) by making allegedly deceptivestatements concerning those reserves."

In an opinion dated September 11, 2015, the Court granted insubstantial part the defendants' motions to dismiss the secondamended complaint. It dismissed all of Central States' ExchangeAct claims -- most for failure to plead an actionablemisrepresentation or omission and some for failure to pleadscienter. It dismissed all of Central States' claims underSection 12 of the Securities Act and substantially all of CentralStates' claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, thelatter for failure to plead an actionable misrepresentation oromission. It upheld Central States' Sections 11 and 15 claims tothe extent they were "based upon the alleged misstatements ofmortality ratios."

Central States filed a third amended complaint with its onesubstantial new allegation -- that the 2007 SSA-DMF cross-checkrevealed a $25 million reserve shortfall. The defendants moved todismiss the TAC.

Judge Kaplan granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the thirdamended complaint to the extent that (1) all claims under theExchange Act and Rule 10b-5, (2) all claims under Section 12 ofthe Securities Act, and (3) all claims under Sections 11 and 15 ofthe Securities Act except those based upon (a) MetLife's allegedomission of material facts about its inquiry into or knowledgeconcerning its implicit representations about the adequacy of theCompany's IBNR reserves, and (b) MetLife's alleged omission ofmaterial facts about the pending state investigations aredismissed. Judge Kaplan denied the motions to dismiss in allremaining respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Kaplan's November 10, 2016 memorandumopinion is available at https://is.gd/CqG5Ps from Leagle.com.

MICHIGAN: Asks Court to Dismiss Suit Over Educational System------------------------------------------------------------Jennifer Chambers, writing for The Detroit News, reports thatattorneys for Gov. Rick Snyder and state education officials sayno fundamental right to literacy exists for Detroit schoolchildrenwho are suing the state over the quality of their education.

The lawyers are asking a federal judge to reject what they call an"attempt to destroy the American tradition of democratic controlof schools."

Timothy J. Haynes, an assistant attorney general, made thosestatements in a 62-page motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed againstGov. Snyder and state education leaders in September by sevenDetroit children who allege decades of state disinvestment anddeliberate indifference to the city schools have denied themaccess to literacy.

"(They) ask this court to serve as a 'super' Legislature taskedwith determining and dictating educational policy in every schooldistrict and school building throughout the United States where anilliterate child may be found," the response says.

"Such a path would effectively supersede democratic control byvoters and the judgment of parents, allowing state and federalcourts to peer over the shoulders of teachers and administratorsand substitute court judgment for the professional judgment ofeducators."

The Detroit schoolchildren, represented by a California publicinterest law firm, sued state officials Sept. 13 in what legalobservers say is an unprecedented attempt to establish thatliteracy is a U.S. constitutional right.

The suit claims the state has functionally excluded Detroitchildren from the state's educational system. It seeks class-action status and several guarantees of equal access to literacy,screening, intervention, a statewide accountability system andother measures.

Attorneys representing the students say the filing highlightsshocking problems in some Detroit schools and is the first of itskind in the nation that seeks to secure students' legal right toliteracy under the 14th Amendment.

The state is asking U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III todismiss the case, saying the U.S. Supreme Court and Michigancourts do recognize the importance of literacy, but reject claimsit is a legal right.

"But as important as literacy may be, the United States SupremeCourt has unambiguously rejected the claim that public educationis a fundamental right under the Constitution. Literacy is acomponent or particular outcome of education, not a right grantedto individuals by the Constitution," Mr. Haynes says.

In his motion, Mr. Haynes denies the state of Michigan has beenresponsible for the operation of the schools in Detroit since1999, which is alleged in the lawsuit, and says the state does notoperate or control public schools in Detroit.

"Contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, the 'state' never ran any ofthe schools, although emergency managers have been appointed tosupplant local authority, where necessary," Mr. Haynes says.

DPS has been under the control of a state-appointed emergencyfinancial manager since 2009. Emergency Manager Steven Rhodes isscheduled to step down on Dec. 31 and a newly elected Board ofEducation begins its work on Jan. 1.

Kathryn Eidmann, staff attorney for Public Counsel, which isrepresenting the schoolchildren, said the state's response wasdisappointing and did not come as a surprise.

"There is no mention about the fact that hardly any of thestudents have access to teachers or books. These are schoolswhere no state officials or state lawyer would send their child,"she said.

DPS has struggled for years with declining enrollment,comparatively low test scores and spending scandals that have leftstudents without needed supplies.

A $617 million aid package approved by lawmakers this summerrelieved the district of nearly a half-billion dollar debt andprovided $150 million in startup funding for a new, debt-freeDetroit Public Schools Community District.

The plaintiffs are students at four of the lowest-performingschools at the Detroit Public School Community District: HamiltonAcademy; Medicine and Community Health Academy at Cody; OsbornCollegiate Academy of Mathematics, Science and Technology; andOsborn Evergreen Academy of Design and Alternative Energy.

One plaintiff is a former student at Experiencia PreparatoryAcademy, a privately operated charter school that closed in June.

The lawsuit is asking the court to order the state to providerelief that includes "appropriate, evidence-based literacy"instruction at all grade levels and to address physical schoolconditions that impair access to literacy.

Judge Murphy is expected to hear motions from both Public Counseland the state in February to decide whether the case movesforward.

Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection ofdebts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' collection practicesviolate the FDCPA. Such collection practices include, inter alia:(a) leaving messages for consumers, which fail to providemeaningful disclosure of Defendants' identity; (b) leavingmessages for consumers, which fail to disclose that the call isfrom a debt collector; and (c) leaving messages for consumers,which fail to disclose the purpose or nature of the communication(i.e. an attempt to collect a debt).

Midland Credit is engaged in the business of collecting orattempting to collect debts on behalf of Midland Funding, LLC asone of its principal areas of business.

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Defends Various False Advertising Class Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Monster Beverage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it is defendingvarious false advertising putative class actions.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various falseadvertising putative class actions and in a private attorneygeneral action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege thatdefendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy(R)brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertisedbenefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that theproducts do not hydrate as advertised because they containcaffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the MonsterEnergy(R) brand products at issue are unsafe because they containone or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness,injury or death.

In connection with these product safety allegations, theplaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequatewarnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficientlyspecific statements with respect to contra-indications and/oradverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energydrink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certainingredients, when consumed individually or in combination withother ingredients, could result in high blood pressure,palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/orthat the products themselves are unsafe). Based on theseallegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of stateconsumer protection statutes, including unfair competition andfalse advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjustenrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek,inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,attorneys' fees and, in some cases, injunctive relief.

The Company regards these cases and allegations as having nomerit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from timeto time in the normal course of business, including intellectualproperty litigation and claims from terminated distributors.

Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome ofsuch litigation, based on the facts known to the Company,management believes that such litigation in the aggregate willlikely not have a material adverse effect on the Company'sfinancial position or results of operations.

MOTION PICTURE: Judge Dismisses 'R' Rating SLAPP Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Greg Herbers of Washington Legal Foundation, in an article forForbes.com, reports that a California federal judge dismissed aputative class-action lawsuit designed to force theClassifications and Rating Administration (CARA) to give an "R"rating to any film containing tobacco use. Alleging that around200,000 young people would start smoking every year after seeingtobacco use in G, PG, and PG-13 rated movies, the plaintiff inForsyth v. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. sued theMotion Picture Association of America (MPAA) (CARA is operated asa division of the association), the National Association ofTheater Owners, and various major movie studios. Becauseinjunctive relief alone isn't enough in most class actions, thecomplaint also sought $20 million in damages.

Searching for a cause of action, the plaintiff used a spaghetti-against-the-wall approach, pleading, among other claims,negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulentmisrepresentation, false advertising, and private and publicnuisance. The crux of his argument is that as of at least 2003,the defendants knew that children's exposure to tobacco use infilms rated under R is "one of the major causes of childrenbecoming addicted to nicotine." Therefore, the defendantsbreached duties, made misrepresentations, committed falseadvertising, and caused a nuisance by failing to rate any filmwith tobacco use lower than R. As a direct result, the complaintalleges that the defendants "recruited" 4.6 million Americanchildren to smoke since 2003, which will inevitably cause 1.5million tobacco-induced deaths. Therefore, the defendants mustpay. The complaint does not, however, explain how an R-ratingwould actually prevent children from seeing tobacco use in films-- many children under the age of 17 watch R-rated films, and anymovie rated before the lawsuit would be unaffected (unless theplaintiff's next action would be an attempt to force MPAA tochange its ratings for past movies, like Peter Pan and 101Dalmatians).

Fortunately, the court was able to see through the complaint'swild assertions, granting both of the defendants' motions to endthe lawsuit, a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike thecomplaint under California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits AgainstPublic Participation (SLAPP) statute. Under anti-SLAPP statutes,if the defendant can demonstrate that the lawsuit arose from anact in furtherance of its First Amendment-protected speech, theplaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing on themerits. As the court explained, because film ratings are anexpression of an opinion about the nature of the film, and not a"certification trademark" as the plaintiff argued, ratings areconsidered speech under the First Amendment. Further, even if theratings themselves weren't considered speech, they clearly furtherthe First Amendment rights of the movie's creators.

The court then determined whether the plaintiff sufficientlysupported his claims to survive the motions to strike and dismiss-- the California anti-SLAPP statute's standard of proof issimilar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).Addressing each claim in turn, the court quickly and efficientlypointed to their shortcomings: for example, the defendants'ratings could not be misrepresentations because they wereopinions, the defendants had no duty to breach, and any alleged"nuisance" did not affect the plaintiff's real property rights.Therefore the court granted both of the defendants' motions,halting the case.

However, the case could continue. While calling the chance"remote," the court did allow the plaintiff to amend his complaintto cure its many defects. In addition, the plaintiff has theopportunity to appeal the district court's decision to the class-action-friendly US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Shouldthe plaintiff opt to appeal, the Ninth Circuit should view thecase for what it is -- a desperate attempt by one man to imposehis morality on the film industry -- and affirm the districtcourt.

NAVIENT CORP: Blyden Appeals Dismissal of Suit to Ninth Circuit---------------------------------------------------------------Marlene Blyden appeals the dismissal of her putative class actionlawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class actionsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, NavientSolutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, NavientInvestment Corporation, SLM Corporation, The Bank of New York, andThe Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ("BNY Mellon").The amended complaint, captioned Marlene Blyden v. NavientCorporation et. al., alleges that plaintiff and members of thepurported class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate abovethat permitted under California law. Plaintiff's Second AmendedComplaint dropped SLM Corporation as a defendant, added varioussecuritization trusts as defendants, and added claims forconversion and for money received. In July 2015, the Court grantedDefendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint butpermitted Plaintiff to make certain amendments to the complaint.Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint in August 2015 whichremoved all of the Defendants except the SLM PC Student Loan 2003-B Trust, BNY Mellon (in its capacity as a trustee), and NavientSolutions, Inc.

The remaining defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the ThirdAmended Complaint which was granted in February 2016. While thecourt granted leave for Plaintiff to file a further amendedcomplaint, Plaintiff instead filed a Notice of Appeal to the NinthCircuit, appealing the District Court's decision to dismiss theThird Amended Complaint.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services inthe United States. The Company operates in three segments:Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, PrivateEducation Loans, and Business Services. the Company holds theportfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under theFFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans. TheCompany also provides asset recovery services for loans andreceivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and highereducation institutions, as well as federal, state, court, andmunicipal clients; and business processing services on behalf ofmunicipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.

Allegations similar to those asserted in the Ubaldi and Blydencases are also raised in a putative class action complaintcaptioned Jamie Beechum, et al. v. Navient Solutions, Inc. filedon October 21, 2015.

The plaintiffs in the cases allege that they were charged and/orpaid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law.

In September 2016, the District Court granted the Company's motionto dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff'speriod to appeal the ruling remains open.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to estimate arange of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may bepayable in connection with either the Blyden or Beechum lawsuits.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services inthe United States. The Company operates in three segments:Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, PrivateEducation Loans, and Business Services. the Company holds theportfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under theFFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans. TheCompany also provides asset recovery services for loans andreceivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and highereducation institutions, as well as federal, state, court, andmunicipal clients; and business processing services on behalf ofmunicipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.

NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Class Suit in Indiana-----------------------------------------------------------------Navient Corporation continues to defend a purported class actionlawsuit commenced by Randy Johnson alleging violations of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016, that

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putativeclass action cases alleging violations of various state andfederal consumer protection laws. On May 4, 2015, Randy Johnsonfiled a putative action in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Indiana, Randy Johnson v. NavientSolutions, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act ("TCPA"). In July 2016, the District Court grantedPlaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Company says it is unable at this point in time to anticipatethe timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that thelegal proceedings may have on the consolidation financialposition, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows ofNavient Corporation and its affiliates.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services inthe United States. The Company operates in three segments:Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, PrivateEducation Loans, and Business Services. the Company holds theportfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under theFFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans. TheCompany also provides asset recovery services for loans andreceivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and highereducation institutions, as well as federal, state, court, andmunicipal clients; and business processing services on behalf ofmunicipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.

NAVIENT CORP: Lord Abbett Amends Consolidated Securities Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Lord Abbett Funds and other Plaintiffs have filed their amendedand consolidated complaint against Navient Corporation, itsofficers and underwriters, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

During the first quarter, Navient Corporation, certain Navientofficers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navientsecurities offerings have been sued in several putative securitiesclass action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors inNavient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which werefiled in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11,2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v.Navient Corporation, et al. (filed Feb. 26, 2016). On April 11,2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel inthe lawsuits. The Court has consolidated the three pending casesand appointed Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff.

The Company says the Navient defendants intend to vigorouslydefend against the allegations in this lawsuit. At this stage inthe proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the timing ofresolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the legalproceedings may have on the consolidation financial position,liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of Navient and itsaffiliates.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services inthe United States. The Company operates in three segments:Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, PrivateEducation Loans, and Business Services. the Company holds theportfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under theFFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans. TheCompany also provides asset recovery services for loans andreceivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and highereducation institutions, as well as federal, state, court, andmunicipal clients; and business processing services on behalf ofmunicipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.

NAVIENT CORP: "Ubaldi" Class Suit Remains Pending in California---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit filed by Tina M. Ubaldi remains pendingNavient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putativeclass action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed priorto the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California. The complaint was captioned TinaM. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al. The plaintiff brought thecomplaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of othersimilarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged,among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late feesthat were proportional to the amount of missed paymentsconstituted liquidated damages in violation of California law andthat Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by chargingdaily interest on private educational loans. Following additionalamendments to the complaint, which added usury claims underCalifornia state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae,Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PCStudent Loan Trust 2004-A), plaintiff further amended hercomplaint to provide for restitution of late charges and interestpaid by members of the putative class, injunctive relief,cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages aspermitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, amongother relief. Named defendants in the case are subsidiaries ofNavient and as such any liability arising from the Ubaldilitigation will remain the sole responsibility of NavientCorporation.

In December 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for ClassCertification with regard to claims concerning late fees, butdenied the motion as to the alleged usury claims. In March 2015,the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend thecomplaint. The case is still pending.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to estimate arange of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may bepayable in connection therewith.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Navient Corporation provides financial products and services inthe United States. The Company operates in three segments:Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans, PrivateEducation Loans, and Business Services. the Company holds theportfolio of education loans insured or guaranteed under theFFELP, as well as the portfolio of private education loans. TheCompany also provides asset recovery services for loans andreceivables on behalf of guarantors of FFELP loans, and highereducation institutions, as well as federal, state, court, andmunicipal clients; and business processing services on behalf ofmunicipalities, public authorities, and hospitals.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said there was not sufficientevidence that the pet food, rather than some other factor, wasresponsible for the dogs' illnesses and deaths, Courthouse NewsService reported.

Purina said the ruling "confirms what millions of pet ownersalready know -- that Beneful is a safe, healthy, and nutritiousdog food that millions of dogs enjoy every day."

The suit was filed in February 2015 by pet owner Frank Lucido,whose English bulldog died and tests found his death "consistentwith poisoning." (Later tests, however, determined he died of aheart tumor but Lucido remained a plaintiff in the case).

The suit claimed that an analysis of 28 samples revealed threetypes of toxins: propylene glycol; mycotoxins, a fungal mold ongrain; and the heavy metals arsenic and lead.

"Poorly designed"The level of toxins did not exceed limits permitted by the U.S.Food and Drug Administration, an expert witness called by theplaintiffs said. Animal toxicologist Dr. John Tegzes said the FDAlimits are "poorly designed." He said they are based on short-term exposure and do not consider the effects of long-term usage.

Dr. Tegzes said that chronic exposure to the mycotoxins, heavymetals, and glycols found in the food posed a "significant healthrisk" to dogs and could adversely affect their health over time.

But Judge Chen rejected that conclusion, saying there wasinsufficient evidence to support it.

"Dr. Tegzes's opinion is not reliable because the scientificliterature he invokes is either too speculative or too imprecise,"Chen wrote in his 24-page ruling. "Simply put, Dr. Tegzes citesno epidemiological evidence that long-term exposure to mycotoxinsat levels below the limits set by the FDA leads to serious healthrisks for dogs."

Sgt. Marc Dennis, a coordinator in the State Police Alcohol DrugTesting Unit, was criminally charged in September after asupervisor reported the sergeant had skipped a legally requiredstep in re-calibrating three breath-testing devices used by localpolice to check the blood-alcohol level of accused drunkendrivers.

Sgt. Dennis allegedly signed certifications claiming he hadperformed the mandatory step, records show. Such documents areused in court to prove the accuracy of blood-alcohol readings.

Robert Ebberup, an attorney for the sergeant, said his client wasnot guilty.

Since the issue came to light, state authorities have requested aspecial judge be appointed to handle an expected glut ofchallenges to seven years' worth of DWI convictions tied to theofficer.

Meanwhile, a Camden County attorney has filed a federal classaction lawsuit on behalf of defendants who were convicted based ontest results from machines Dennis maintained.

The controversy comes as another State Police lab in charge oftesting drug evidence is under scrutiny after one of itstechnicians was accused of falsifying test results in a marijuanacase, bringing more than 15,000 drug convictions into question.

Records obtained by NJ Advance Media show prosecutors are nowworking with the state court system to figure out how to handle aneven larger problem, with as many as 20,667 individual casesacross five counties affected by the criminal case against thesergeant.

Sgt. Dennis was accused of foregoing a preliminary temperaturecheck required under state Supreme Court rules regarding thecalibration of the machines approved for breath-testing in NewJersey, known as Alcotest devices.

Officials from the state Division of Criminal Justice, whichbrought the charges against Sgt. Dennis, said in correspondenceobtained through a public records request that the temperaturecheck -- while legally required under a decision known as State v.Chun -- is not scientifically necessary.

But DWI lawyers interviewed by NJ Advance Media say the sergeantallegedly passed over a crucial step meant to ensure citizensaren't convicted of drunken driving based on a faulty machinereading.

"The science upon which the state obtained approval for theAlcotest device relies on proper calibration," said ChristopherBaxter, a former municipal prosecutor who now represents clientsaccused of DWI. "Without proper calibration, the science behindthe device's accuracy falls apart."

New Jersey's DWI laws are unique in that drunken driving isconsidered a motor vehicle offense rather than a criminal one, butthe penalties for a DWI conviction can be steep.

And importantly, those penalties can hinge on the level ofintoxication gauged by an Alcotest device.

For example, the threshold for driving under the influence in NewJersey is a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent, but toughersanctions kick in for a driver who blows a .1 percent, making thepin-point accuracy of so-called breathalyzer devices key forsentencing.

That, DWI lawyers say, is where human oversight is vital.

"Coordinators (like Dennis) are very important, and it's about allthe citizen has to say the machine is working," saidJeff Gold, a DWI lawyer who represented the New Jersey State BarAssociation in the landmark Supreme Court decision thatestablished the rules for breath-testing. "Otherwise it's arobot. That calibration is necessary, and small differencesmatter."

The State Police unit Dennis belonged to is in charge ofperforming periodic calibrations of machines used by local policedepartments to make sure they were taking accurate readings.Dennis personally tested machines in in Middlesex, Monmouth,Ocean, Somerset and Union counties, records show.

"When you give a breath sample, it's gone when you walk out of thestation. They can't re-test it."

The accusations against the sergeant may bring the accuracy of anydevice under his supervision into question, some lawyers say.

Already, challenges are piling up.

In an October 17 filing, Division of Criminal Justice DirectorElie Honig wrote to the justices of the state Supreme Courtregarding the case of a New Jersey woman who pleaded guilty todrunken driving charges in Spring Lake municipal court.

The woman is seeking to withdraw her plea "on the grounds thatDennis calibrated the Alcotest instrument on which she provided abreath sample," Honig wrote.

The state prosecutor wrote that his office expected "manyadditional legal challenges will be filed regarding breath testresults from Alcotest instruments that were calibrated by Dennis."

Later that month, a Cherry Hill attorney, Lisa J. Rodriguez, fileda civil class-action lawsuit on behalf of an Ocean Countyresident, Ashley Ortiz, who was convicted of drunken driving inWall Township last year. According to court records, Ms. Ortizwas initially pulled over for having a busted light above herlicense plate, but subjected to a field sobriety test when theofficer detected the smell of alcohol.

An Alcotest later showed she had a blood-alcohol content of .09percent, records show.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton,Ms. Rodriguez wrote that those accused of drunken driving, facedwith the results of an Alcotest, "have little choice but to pleadguilty" mainly because such results are considered "indisputablyaccurate."

The suit seeks civil damages on behalf of potentially thousands ofpeople convicted based on results from machines Dennis calibrated.

The universe of DWI cases possibly affected by the criminal caseagainst Sgt. Dennis may be large, prosecutors and defenseattorneys say, but the number of those who will successfullyoverturn their convictions based on the scandal is likely farlower.

For one, Sgt. Dennis was accused of skipping the temperature checkwhile recalibrating just three devices, which were used in two DWIcases before being taken out of service. So while the chargesbring into question any device he handled, it's unclear whetherthe accusations amount to a few isolated cases or a systemicproblem.

Additionally, drunken driving is a unique offense in that someconvictions don't require objective testing at all. An officer'sassertion, based on observations of a driver's behavior and theresults of a field sobriety test, can be enough to convict.

The Dennis case has echoes of another State Police scandal madepublic this year.

In late December, Kamalkant Shah, a lab technician at the StatePolice North Regional Laboratory in Little Falls, was accused offaking a test result in a single marijuana case. The disclosurebrought some 14,800 cases involving evidence Mr. Shah eithertested or performed peer review on into question.

A criminal investigation in that case is ongoing.

A Superior Court judge was appointed as a "special master" toconsolidate the glut of challenges to criminal convictions in thedrug lab case. The state Attorney General's Office has made asimilar request in the Dennis case, which is still pending beforethe Supreme Court.

In the Shah case, authorities re-tested many of the drug samplesto confirm they were, in fact, banned substances. In a Junecertification, an assistant attorney general said they had yet toidentify a case where a drug defendant was behind bars because ofa faulty test result.

But Mr. Baxter, the DWI lawyer, said the evidence against hisclients is often more ephemeral than crumbs of marijuana or a bagof cocaine.

NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Santa Clara Pigment Suit Remains Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------NL Industries, Inc.'s appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuitfiled by the county of Santa Clara remains pending, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016, that

"In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 we were servedwith a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic RichfieldCompany, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, Countyof Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number ofCalifornia government entities against the former pigmentmanufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. TheCounty of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages forfunds the plaintiffs have expended or would in the future expendfor medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or othercosts due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint,disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages. In July 2003, thetrial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remainingclaims. Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate courtreinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, andfraud claims in March 2006. A fourth amended complaint was filedin March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the CountyAttorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles andSanta Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diegoand Oakland. That complaint alleged that the presence of leadpaint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecutingjurisdictions and sought its abatement," the Company said.

"In July and August 2013, the case was tried. In January 2014,the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin WilliamsCompany and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and severallyliable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, andordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to thepeople of the State of California to fund such abatement. InFebruary 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial, and in March2014 the court denied the motion. Subsequently in March 2014, wefiled a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appealfor the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with theappellate court. NL believes that this judgment is inconsistentwith California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and wewill defend vigorously against all claims."

"The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second timethat an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has beenentered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL wasultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that thelikelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdictin the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness ofthe Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdictshave ever been rendered against us, or any of the other formerlead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory ofliability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the publicnuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment mattersin many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiffhas asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has eversuccessfully been upheld)."

In addition, the Company says, liability that may result, if any,cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basison which an estimate of liability could be made. However, as withany legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any appeal wouldbe successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcomeof the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur someliability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingencyaccrual that could have a material adverse impact on our resultsof operations, financial position and liquidity.

NL Industries, Inc., is primarily a holding company. The Companyoperates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company also ownsa non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. CompX is amanufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety ofapplications and industries. Kronos is a global producer andmarketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments (TiO2). TiO2 isused for a variety of manufacturing applications including paints,plastics, paper and other industrial and specialty products.

NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Lead Pigment Litigation----------------------------------------------------------NL Industries, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it continues todefend lawsuits arising from use of lead-based paints.

"Our former operations included the manufacture of lead pigmentsfor use in paint and lead-based paint. We, other formermanufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-basedpaint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the LeadIndustries Association (LIA), which discontinued businessoperations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legalproceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damageand governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or onbehalf of states, counties, cities or their public housingauthorities and school districts, and certain others have beenasserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under avariety of theories, including public and private nuisance,negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strictliability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or riskcontribution liability, intentional tort, fraud andmisrepresentation, violations of state consumer protectionstatutes, supplier negligence and similar claims."

"The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on thedefendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and healthconcerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, includingdamages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnificationfor medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs foreducational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seekcompensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damagesare generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages areunspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed orwithdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trialstages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summaryjudgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either thedefendants or the plaintiffs."

The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and itintends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing andliability and to defend against all actions vigorously. TheCompany does not believe it is probable that it has incurred anyliability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation casesto which it is a party, and liability to it that may result, ifany, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because: (i)the Company has never settled any of the market share, intentionaltort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty,conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterpriseliability, or statutory cases, (ii) no final, non-appealableadverse verdicts have ever been entered against the Company, and(iii) the Company has never ultimately been found liable withrespect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 casesover a twenty-year period for which the Company was previously aparty and for which it has been dismissed without any finding ofliability.

Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amounts for any ofthe pending lead pigment and lead--based paint litigation casesfiled by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their publichousing authorities and school districts, or those asserted asclass actions. In addition, the Company has determined thatliability to it which may result, if any, cannot be reasonablyestimated because there is no prior history of a loss of thisnature on which an estimate could be made and there is nosubstantive information available upon which an estimate could bebased.

NL Industries, Inc., is primarily a holding company. The Companyoperates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company also ownsa non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. CompX is amanufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety ofapplications and industries. Kronos is a global producer andmarketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments (TiO2). TiO2 isused for a variety of manufacturing applications including paints,plastics, paper and other industrial and specialty products.

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Files More Support on Bid to Toss SEPTA Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., and other Defendants filed anotice of subsequent event in further support of their motion todismiss Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority'ssecond amended complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania TransportationAuthority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Middle District ofPennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current andformer directors and executive officers (collectively, the"Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement datedMarch 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period ofMarch 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issuedmaterially false and misleading statements regarding the Company'slending practices and financial results, including misleadingstatements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's creditpractices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loanportfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company'sMarch 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint assertsclaims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks classcertification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, feesand equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private SecuritiesLitigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointmentof Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTAwas the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiffon August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amendedcomplaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file amotion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to theDefendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the casewere stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion todismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference toaddress discovery and the filing of a motion for classcertification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposedmotion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint inorder to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in theamended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims anddefendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court grantedSEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or beforeJanuary 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstancesthat require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013,the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargementof time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amendedcomplaint expands the list of defendants in the action to includethe Company's independent registered public accounting firm andthe underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering ofcommon stock. In addition, among other things, the amendedcomplaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class periodfrom March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court'sMarch 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 alldefendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint,and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to allof the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, alldefendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motionsto dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argumenton the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on thepending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held onApril 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the casepending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed theparties that, if required, a telephonic conference to addressdiscovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certificationwould be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions todismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filedsupplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United StatesSupreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v.Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund ondefendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissedwithout prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against alldefendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim undereither the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint,accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of itsintention to stand on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend underLocal Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed secondamended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of theproposed second amended complaint are essentially the same orsimilar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. Theproposed second amended complaint also alleges that the OrrstownDefendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures ofinternal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, andfinancial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violationof the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Courtgranted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed itssecond amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Orderdirecting: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss byMarch 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to filereply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the secondamended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordancewith the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case(including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification)pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaintdisclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by theCommission. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed onSeptember 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into asettlement agreement with the Commission resolving theinvestigation of accounting and related matters at the Company forthe periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part ofthe settlement of the Commission's administrative proceedings andpursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting ordenying the Commission's findings, the Company, its ChiefExecutive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, is formerExecutive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer its ChiefAccounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to theCommission. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1million. The Company had previously established a reserve for thatamount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. Inthe settlement agreement with the Commission, the Company alsoagreed to cease and desist from committing or causing anyviolations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A)and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgatedthereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with theCourt a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of theirMotion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding thesettlement with the Commission. The Notice attached a copy of theCommission's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what theCompany believes are the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Responseto the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with theCommission did not support dismissal of the second amendedcomplaint.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's secondamended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorouslydefend itself against those claims. Given that the SEPTAlitigation is still in the pleading stage, it is not possible atthis time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a rangeof reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., is a bank holding company (thathas elected status as a financial holding company with the Boardof Governors of the Federal Reserve System) whose primary activityconsists of supervising its wholly-owned subsidiary, OrrstownBank. The Company operates through its head office inShippensburg, Pennsylvania. The Bank provides services throughits network of 25 offices in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin,Lancaster, and Perry Counties of Pennsylvania and in WashingtonCounty, Maryland.

"Sexual misconduct and harassment is a deep-rooted problem inCanadian military culture," Halifax-based lawyer Ray Wagner saidafter filing a statement of claim against Ottawa with the NovaScotia Supreme Court.

"The accounts of rampant, routine sexual discrimination, bullyingand unwanted sexual advances against female members areastonishing," he said. "This frequent misconduct is part of atroubling and deeply embedded culture that female members havebeen forced to endure. It's time to step back, acknowledge howwrong it is, and take a stand against it."

The plaintiff in the case is Glynis Rogers, a 29-year-old formermember of the Canadian Armed Forces from Nova Scotia, but if thecase proceeds, the class could include any women who claim similartreatment.

According to her statement of claim, Rogers joined the CanadianArmed Forces in 2006, and says she was subjected to persistent andsystemic gender and sexual-orientation-based discrimination,bullying and harassment by male members, particularly duringtraining.

She says female members were called names and treated as beingweaker and inferior to male members.

Ms. Rogers claims she was sexually assaulted by a male member atOntario's CFB Borden in Feb. 2012 but was reluctant to disclosethe incident to her superiors.

"Ms. Rogers . . . did not trust that the chain of command wouldtake her report seriously. She knew of other female members whohad been sexually assaulted and had not reported the incidents dueto similar concerns about retaliation, being labelled as atroublemaker, and receiving an inadequate and unreasonableresponse," the statement of claim reads.

The document says she eventually reported the incident and themale member was found guilty, but he later appealed and wasacquitted.

"She has suffered in a great way. She suffered from posttraumatic stress, depression and was eventually discharged andlost her career," Mr. Wagner said.

The claim alleges the Attorney General of Canada is vicariouslyliable for the alleged misconduct.

A spokesperson confirmed the Canadian Armed Forces had been servedwith the lawsuit, and said the government is deciding its "nextsteps."

Mr. Wagner said it will likely be sometime next year before theyknow if the class action suit will proceed.

He said it's hoped the case would change the culture within theArmed Forces and give women a channel for reporting any abuse.

Mr. Wagner said an eventual case would seek damages, but theamount wouldn't be determined until its known how many womendecide to be part of the class.

In a 2015 report, retired Supreme Court justice Marie Deschampsfound bad behaviour was "endemic" in the military -- aninstitution steeped in a macho culture that leaves women fearfulto report abuse.

At the time, the Canadian military said it acknowledged two keyfindings in the report. It agrees with Justice Deschamps that amisogynistic, highly sexualized culture pervades the Canadianmilitary. The military brass also concurred that eradicating thatculture will take a concerted effort from defence leadership.

PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Dillard" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Platform Specialty Products Corporation awaits decision on itsmotion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit pending inFlorida, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In March and April 2016, a class action lawsuit entitled Dillardv. Platform Specialty Products Corporation, et al. and ashareholder derivative action entitled Tuttelman v. PlatformSpecialty Products Corporation, et al., respectively, were filedagainst Platform, certain of its former and current executiveofficers and, in the case of the derivative action, its directorsin the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Floridaalleging that the defendants made material false and misleadingstatements relating to the Company's business, operational andcompliance policies in light of certain matters discovered andreported by the Company itself in connection with a Companyinternal investigation into certain past business practices of theCompany's Arysta West Africa business, as disclosed herein and inthe Annual Report. In June 2016, the shareholder derivative actionwas dismissed by the Court.

In June 2016, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs in theclass action lawsuit, and in July 2016, the lead plaintiffs filedan amended complaint with an expanded class period but statingsubstantially similar claims to those contained in the originalcomplaint. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages.

In September 2016, Platform filed a motion to dismiss thiscomplaint, which is fully briefed and currently pending before theCourt.

The Company believes this proceeding is without merit and intendsto defend it vigorously.

Platform Specialty Products Corporation, a Delaware corporation,is a global, diversified producer of high-technology specialtychemical products and provider of technical services. TheCompany's business involves the formulation of a broad range ofsolutions-oriented specialty chemicals which are sold intomultiple industries, including agricultural, animal health,electronics, graphic arts, plating, offshore oil and gasproduction and drilling.

PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Defends 3 Suits Over RELISTOR--------------------------------------------------------------Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is defending three class actionlawsuits arising from its sales and promotional practices forRELISTOR, according to Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016, that

In February 2011, the Company licensed its first commercial drug,RELISTOR(R) (methylnaltrexone bromide) for the treatment of opioidinduced constipation ("OIC"), to Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (awholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,Inc. ("Valeant")). On July 19, 2016, the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration ("FDA") approved RELISTOR Tablets for the treatmentof OIC in adults with chronic non-cancer pain, for which theCompany received a $50 million development milestone payment fromValeant in the third quarter of 2016.

Under the Company's license agreement with Valeant, the Company isdependent on Valeant for compliance with these regulatoryrequirements as they apply to RELISTOR. Valeant's subsidiary Salixdisclosed that in February 2013 it received a subpoena from theU.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New Yorkrequesting documents regarding its sales and promotional practicesfor RELISTOR and certain of its other products, that it iscontinuing to respond to the subpoena and intends to cooperatefully with the subpoena and related government investigation,which has and will continue to increase its legal expenses andmight require management time and attention. Salix subsequentlyhas become the subject of an SEC investigation and, beginning onNovember 7, 2004, the target of three putative class actionlawsuits filed by shareholders of Salix.

Valeant has indicated that as of the filing of its report on Form10-Q for the second quarter of 2016, it cannot predict the outcomeor the duration of the SEC investigation or any other legalproceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that maybe imposed on Salix or Valeant arising out of the SECinvestigation. Accordingly, no assurance can be given as toValeant's financial condition or results of operations, or abilityto meet its royalty or milestone obligations to Progenics.

QUANTUM ON THE BAY: Tenant Sues Over High Condo Move-in Fees------------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Nehamas, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a tenantis suing a Miami condo association over its excessive applicationand move-in fees, saying they violate state law.

The lawsuit is the first of several class-actions that attorneyssay they plan to file against condo associations over high fees.In June, the Miami Herald reported that condo boards routinelycharge consumers hundreds of dollars more than state law allows.Florida statute caps the amount condos can charge to apply andmove in at $100 per person.

In a suit filed on Nov. 18 in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court,August Lasseter says he was billed $625 in non-refundable feeswhen he signed a lease for a unit at one of the two high-risetowers at Quantum on the Bay last year. The charges broke down to$100 for a background check, $175 for "administrative review,"$125 for registration and $225 for move-in.

"I questioned it at the time, but it's not like you really have achoice," said Mr. Lasseter, 37, who runs a modeling agency. "Theysay you pay it or you don't move in."

Attorneys for the board, which was highlighted in the Herald'sinitial story as the condo with the highest fees, said they hadnot yet been served and couldn't comment.

The Florida Condominium Act prohibits condo associations fromcharging fees of more than $100 per applicant "in connection withthe sale, mortgage, lease, sublease, or other transfer of a unit."(Married couples are considered one person and children areexempt.)

Such fees are known as "transfer" fees because they concern thetransfer of a unit from one owner or tenant to another.

"It's shocking that associations are intentionally and knowinglycharging these fees when they are improper even after the publicattention from media coverage," said Aaron Resnick, an attorneywho is handling the suit. "It's black-and-white. The law can'tbe any clearer on what you're allowed to do and what you're notallowed to do. . . . Knowledgeable condo associations and propertymanagement companies have been flouting the law for years. It's ashame that it will take lawsuits to end this practice."

Mr. Resnick is working with South Florida attorneys Joshua Spectorand Jonathan Feldman to file more suits across the state.

"We've identified condo associations from Tallahassee toJacksonville and Orlando to Tampa, but Miami is the mostprevalent," he said. "And we've found it's not just the expensivecondos that are doing this, it's across the board. The wrong isthe same, but the impact is even greater [on poorer residents]."

Mr. Lasseter's lawsuit says Quantum's fees also constitute aviolation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.It seeks to have Quantum pay damages and restitution to Mr.Lasseter and those who join his claim, and asks a judge to stopthe association from charging more than $100.

Rents at the complex at 1900 N. Bayshore Dr. in Edgewater rangefrom $1,500 for a studio to $4,250 for a three-bedroom penthouse.

Overcharging

A Herald analysis of Realtor data this summer found that nearlyhalf of condos listed for sale or rent in Miami-Dade County askedmore than $100 in fees. In Broward, 22 percent of condos chargedillegally high fees. A search in November showed roughly the samenumbers.

Property management companies argue the law does allow for chargesof more than $100, if the charges come from a third party, not theassociation. And they say background checks have grown moreexpensive since the cap was set in 1990.

But legal experts consulted by the Herald say the statute is clearand associations are gouging applicants. The Division of FloridaCondominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes confirmed that the $100transfer cap is meant to include all non-refundable fees forbackground checks, registration, move-in, pets, elevator usage andother charges requested by condo boards and their representatives.

(The rules don't apply to homeowners' associations and rentalapartments.)

Background check companies told the Herald they usually chargebetween $20 and $45 for individual tenant screening, and offerdiscounts for bulk commercial accounts from condos.

But international clients can be significantly more expensive,said Robert Sanchez, vice president of Miami-based UnitedScreening Services. Checks on people from Russia and LatinAmerica, where many Miami condo buyers come from, can range ashigh as $175, Sanchez said.

Even so, "the law is the law," said Stavros Mitchelides, the MiamiBeach Realtor who first alerted the Herald to the problem ofovercharging. "If state law says the fee can't exceed $100 for asingle person or a married couple, then you shouldn't be able togo around the law just to make money off of applications fromeveryone else. I find it extremely disturbing."

The extra charges make it even more difficult for locals to find ahome in South Florida, already one of the nation's most expensivehousing markets.

Mr. Mitchelides says he repeatedly told the Miami Association ofRealtors about the problem but never heard back. (A spokeswomanfor the association said they did not have a record of beingcontacted by Mr. Mitchelides.)

After the Herald's initial story came out, Jose Pazos, who runs aprominent South Florida property management firm, disputed thenewspaper's findings in a Facebook video and said he would lobbythe Florida Legislature on the issue.

RIVER RUN: Court Allow Fraud Class Action to Proceed----------------------------------------------------Michael Nowina, writing for Global Compliance News, reports thatboth of Canada's primary insolvency statutes, the Bankruptcy andInsolvency Act ("BIA") and the Companies' Creditors ArrangementAct ("CCAA") provide for an automatic stay of all legalproceedings when an insolvent debtor files for or seeks insolvencyprotection. The purpose of the stay is to provide breathing spaceto a debtor attempting to restructure its business so as to avoid"death by a thousand cuts" and also to ensure similarly situatedcreditors are treated equally. While it is an integral part ofCanada's insolvency regime, the stay of proceedings is notinviolable and there have been a number of noteworthy cases whereCanadian courts have considered whether to lift the statutory stayand permit proposed class actions to proceed where the plaintiffhas alleged fraud.

In a 2016 decision, Da Silva v. River Run Vistas Corp. 2016 ABQB433 ("Da Silva"), the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench lifted a stayto permit a proposed class action to proceed against two bankruptindividuals who had been the officers, directors and shareholdersof companies developing real estate projects in the province ofAlberta. The representative plaintiffs alleged that the proposedclass had lost approximately $14 million as a result of afraudulent real estate development scheme orchestrated by thebankrupts through their companies. Section 69.4 of the BIApermits an affected creditor to apply to the court for adeclaration that the stay no longer operates in respect of thatcreditor or person, and the court may make such a declaration,subject to any qualification that the court considers proper if itis satisfied:

a. that the creditor or person is likely to be materiallyprejudiced by the continued operation of those sections; or

b. that it is equitable on other grounds to make such adeclaration.

In Da Silva, the representative plaintiffs' central argument wasthat bankruptcy does not release a bankrupt from debts arising outof fraud and therefore the proposed class action should be allowedto proceed. In assessing the parties' submissions, the motionjudge considered the requisite evidentiary threshold the courtwill consider sufficient to lift a stay under the BIA andconcluded that, while the threshold is low and the plaintiffs neednot prove a prima facie case, they must make more than mereallegations. In this case, the motion judge lifted the stay inlight of the dramatic and unexplained reduction value in landowned by the companies and certain financial transfers between thedefendants which were described as "suspicious".

However, an allegation of fraud will not automatically result inthe stay of proceedings being lifted especially where it mightnegatively impact ongoing restructuring. In Sino-ForestCorporation (Re), 2012 ONSC 6275, an Ontario motion judge refusedto lift the stay of proceedings under the CCAA for a class actionseeking $9.18 billion in damages based on allegations that Sino-Forest Corporation, some of its officers and directors, auditorsand underwriters made material misrepresentations regarding theassets and operations of the corporation. The motion judgeconsidered the applicable factors for lifting a stay set out inTimminco Ltd., (Re) 2012 ONSC 2515 which focus on:

a. the relative prejudice to the parties of lifting orcontinuing the stay;

b. the balance of convenience; and

c. where relevant, the merits (i.e. if the proposed proceedingshas little chance of success, there may not be sound reasons forlifting the stay).

The motion judge was persuaded that the defendants of the proposedclass action should remain focused on the restructuring and thatthere would be little prejudice to the proposed class actionmembers if the stay was maintained while the restructuring processwas underway. Ultimately, once the restructuring processconcluded, the stay of proceedings was lifted and the Ontarioclass action was certified in January 2015.

Key Takeaways

-- Canadian courts will lift statutory insolvency stays ofproceedings in order to permit class actions to proceed.

-- Proposed class action plaintiffs need not prove a primafacie case, however they must make more than mere allegations offraud.

-- While the test to lift a stay under the BIA or CCAA differs,a significant consideration in either context that the courts willconsider is the prejudice a party would suffer if the stay islifted.

-- Motions to lift the automatic stay may not be granted if itis detrimental to an ongoing restructuring.

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: 1st Circuit Sets Briefing in "Corban" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------A briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' appeal has been set by theCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit in the lawsuit titledCorban v. Sarepta, et al., Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., said in itsForm 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

On January 27, 2014, and January 29, 2014, purported class actioncomplaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current orformer officers. The complaints were consolidated into a singleaction (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) ("Corban") byorder of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs'consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought tobring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities thatpurchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10,2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaintalleged that Sarepta and certain of its current or former officersviolated the federal securities laws in connection withdisclosures related to eteplirsen and sought damages in anunspecified amount. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta'smotion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. On August12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' April 30, 2015 motionfor leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, and onSeptember 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffsfiled a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the FirstCircuit on September 29, 2015.

On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate theDistrict Court's order denying leave to amend and dismissing thecase, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs' appeal wasstayed. On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion. On May19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend thejudgment. The Court denied that motion on May 20, 2016. A briefingschedule for the plaintiffs' appeal has been set by the FirstCircuit.

The Company says an estimate of the possible loss or range of losscannot be made at this time.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., is a commercial-stagebiopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and developmentof unique RNA-targeted therapeutics for the treatment of rareneuromuscular diseases. The Company is primarily focused onrapidly advancing the development of its potentially disease-modifying Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD") drug candidates.

Another purported class action complaint was filed on December 3,2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts(Kader v. Sarepta et al. 1:14-cv-14318) ("Kader"), asserting thatthe Company and certain of its current or former officers violatedSection 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and ExchangeCommission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed onMarch 20, 2015, alleged that the defendants made materialmisrepresentations or omissions during the putative class periodof April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding thesufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an NDA foreteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA basedon that data. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees.

On April 5, 2016, the Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismissthe amended complaint. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed amotion for leave to further amend the complaint, which Sareptaopposed on April 22, 2016. That motion remains pending.

The Company says an estimate of the possible loss or range of losscannot be made at this time.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., is a commercial-stagebiopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and developmentof unique RNA-targeted therapeutics for the treatment of rareneuromuscular diseases. The Company is primarily focused onrapidly advancing the development of its potentially disease-modifying Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD") drug candidates.

SOTHEBYS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Graham" Suit Claims Pending---------------------------------------------------------------Estate of Robert Graham, et al.'s appeal from a court rulinggranting motion to dismiss the remaining claims in their actionremains pending, Sothebys said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purportedclass action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in theState of California or at auction by California sellers and forwhich a royalty was allegedly due under the California ResaleRoyalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seekunspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief foralleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the CaliforniaUnfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motionto dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that theResale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and ispreempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, theplaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss.The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissingthe action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violatedthe Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffsappealed this ruling.

On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower courtdecision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutionalinsofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state ofCalifornia. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certiorari to theU.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 11, 2016.

On April 12, 2016, the district court granted Sotheby's motion todismiss the remaining claims in the action, which relate to salesthat occurred in California. The plaintiffs have appealed thisdecision.

Sotheby's is a global art business whose operations are organizedunder two segments -- the Agency segment and the Finance segment.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLMCorporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California as a putative class action withrespect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made bySallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks,including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim thatSallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in orderto evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lenderon the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, SallieMae charged interest and late fees that violates California usurylaw and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Maehas denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that itintends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, theCourt denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class;however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing toredefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23,2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on therenewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims ofimproper late fees, but denying class certification with respectto plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motionseeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties,which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court deniedthe plaintiffs' motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm CohenMilstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered itsappearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in thefirst quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a noticeof claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the UbaldiCase (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that BankSNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligationspursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 betweenSallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in questionwere made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses withrespect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimatelymade by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defendagainst any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of theclass, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii)the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans madeby Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late feescharged to particular class members, (vi) the time period thatwill ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the UbaldiCase, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs mightprevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against usfor indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood thatSallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannotestimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as aresult of the Ubaldi Case.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc., is a financial holding company for BankSNB, which has been providing banking services since 1894.Through Bank SNB, the Company has 31 full-service banking centerslocated primarily along the heavily populated areas on the I-35corridor through Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and in Colorado.

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal---------------------------------------------------------------St. Jude Medical, Inc., awaits final approval of a settlementresolving the consolidated securities litigation in Minnesota,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended October 1, 2016.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuitwas filed in federal district court in Minnesota against theCompany and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for allegedviolations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of allpurchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendantsbetween October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well asattorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerningits high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purportedclass period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securitiesclass action lawsuit was filed in federal district court inMinnesota against the Company and certain officers for allegedviolations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of allpurchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Companybetween October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The secondcomplaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. InMarch 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed alead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaintwas served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleadingrepresentations made during the class period extending fromFebruary 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss theconsolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruledon the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and grantingthe motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed asecond amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amendedcomplaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount ofcompensation in the second amended complaint. The Court grantedclass certification on December 22, 2015.

On May 24, 2016, the parties agreed to resolve the case, pendingnotification to class members and subject to court approval. Underthe settlement, the Company agreed to make a payment of $39.25million to resolve all of the class claims and recorded a chargeof that amount during the second quarter of 2016.

On July 13, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarilyapproving the settlement. Concurrent with the recording of theloss, the Company also recognized probable insurance recoveries of$39.25 million. The hearing on final settlement approval wasscheduled for November 9, 2016.

St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s business is focused on the development,manufacture and distribution of cardiovascular medical devices forthe global cardiac rhythm management, cardiovascular and atrialfibrillation therapy areas, and interventional pain therapy andneurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain andmovement disorders.

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Four Class Suits Over Abbott Merger-------------------------------------------------------------St. Jude Medical, Inc., is defending four shareholder lawsuitsarising from its proposed merger with Abbott Laboratories,according to St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended October 1, 2016.

On May 2, 2016, a shareholder of the Company filed a purportedclass action lawsuit in Ramsey County, Minnesota, captionedSilverman v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 62-CV-16-2872alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciaryduties in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by theCompany and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) (the ProposedTransaction). On May 26, 2016, a second action entitled Larkin v.Starks, et al., 62-CV-16-3367, was filed in the same courtalleging substantially similar claims. On July 5, 2016, plaintiffsin the two actions jointly filed an Amended Shareholder class andDerivative Action Complaint (the Amended Complaint). Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint asserts that the Company's directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties by conducting a flawed sale process,failing to maximize shareholder value, and publishing false ormisleading disclosure materials relating to the ProposedTransaction, and that the Abbott defendants aided and abettedthose breaches. The Amended Complaint asserts direct and/orderivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate wasteand abuse of control under Minnesota Statute Section 302A.467.Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the ProposedTransaction and an order directing defendants to account toplaintiffs for all damages allegedly suffered by the putativeclass and damages allegedly incurred by the Company in connectionwith the Proposed Transaction.

On August 3, 2016, a third action entitled Gross v. Starks, etal., 62-CV-16-4581, was filed in Ramsey County, Minnesota,containing allegations similar to those in the Silverman AmendedComplaint. This action was consolidated with the two previouslyfiled actions. On June 30, 2016, a shareholder of the Companyfiled a purported class action lawsuit in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Minnesota, captioned Rosenfeldv. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 16-cv-02275-WMW-FLN, allegingthat the Company and its directors violated Section 14(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9, and MinnesotaStatute Sections 80A.68 and 80A.76, and that the Company'sdirectors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by filing aForm S-4 with the SEC that contained false or misleadingstatements regarding the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff seeks,among other things, to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, ifconsummated, an order rescinding it or awarding actual andpunitive damages to Plaintiff and the putative class.

The Company and its directors intend to vigorously defend againstthe allegations in these actions involving the ProposedTransaction. The Company believes that a material loss is remote.

St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s business is focused on the development,manufacture and distribution of cardiovascular medical devices forthe global cardiac rhythm management, cardiovascular and atrialfibrillation therapy areas, and interventional pain therapy andneurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain andmovement disorders.

He's done the comparisons. He knows his annual bills for streetmaintenance are at least twice that of neighbors who have similarbuildings in the middle of the block. But whatever additionalbenefit he is supposed to get for his money hasn't materialized,Mr. Skally said.

"The system is obviously broken," he said. "It's such a blatantdisparity."

Many St. Paul property owners say the city's right of wayassessment process, which is based on street frontage, is unfair.Several attorneys have a stronger word for it: illegal.

Under state law, cities can only charge a fee for properties thatbenefit from an improvement. That is not what is happening in St.Paul, residents and attorneys argue. St. Paul assesses almost allproperty owners every year and uses that money for streetmaintenance, including tree trimming, snowplowing and litterpickup.

Downtown churches initiated a lawsuit in 2011 over the assessmentprocess, which is headed to trial. Other property owners plan tobring a class-action suit against the city.

Meanwhile, Council Member Amy Brendmoen is pushing to changeanother piece of the assessment process -- a little-known one thatshe said unfairly burdens people who already struggle financially.

Residents who can't afford to pay their assessment outright canfinance it, but St. Paul charges an interest rate that includes an"add-on finance charge" that goes to the city's Office ofFinancial Services. That's double-dipping, Ms. Brendmoen said,because the city already collects an administrative fee onassessments.

"We were basically harming people who did not have the ability toself-finance their assessment," she said.

The add-on charges, like assessments, are more costly for peoplewho have a lot of property bordering streets. Ms. Brendmoen saidthat is not fair, which is the same argument made by attorneys andresidents who oppose the general assessment process.

"There are some similarities in the conversations," sheacknowledged, but she is pushing to change the add-on chargeindependent of the broader debate.

St. Paul city staffers have created a work group to re-evaluatethe right of way assessment system. That effort was prompted by aMinnesota Supreme Court ruling in August that the city'sassessments are taxes, not fees.

"Assuming people want high-quality street maintenance services,it's a matter of figuring out how best to create a system that themost people view as the most fair," said City AttorneySammy Clark, a member of the group.

The City Council is scheduled to approve 2017 assessments inDecember, but doesn't have to ratify them until next fall. CouncilPresident Russ Stark said St. Paul could change the assessmentprocess in the middle of next year.

However, the city anticipates collecting $32.5 million inassessment charges next year. If council members do change theprocess, they would have to figure out how to make up for it inthe budget.

Street frontage adds up

If the city doesn't alter its assessment process, a typicalhomeowner can expect to pay $217.50 next year. Given St. Paul'sgridded street system, most property owners' street frontage isminimal. But there are unusual lots, like Frank Gurney's onWheelock Parkway, which is bordered by three streets and billed at$1,040.85 in 2017.

Mr. Gurney, a retiree on a fixed income, has a measured view ofhis high assessments; he once worked for the city and served onthe Planning Commission. He said the city has to pay for roadwork somehow.

"Would I like to see it lower? Yes. Do I think it should belower? I'm not so sure," Mr. Gurney said, adding that he wants tosee a plan to mitigate the costs.

"It's at the point where it should be discussed," he said.

Others, like Jennifer Elmquist, are adamant that change is needed.

Ms. Elmquist owns Jennifer's Wee Care, a day care center at thecorner of Pascal Street and Jefferson Avenue. Her 2017 assessmentwould be $1,345.80, according to city assessment rolls. Anotherchild care company, located in a home on the same block asJennifer's Wee Care, would pay $199.60.

"I don't get a benefit from being on a corner. I would get thesame benefit from being in the middle of the block," Ms. Elmquistsaid.

Ms. Elmquist said she would like to see the city use taxes, ratherthan assessments, to pay for street maintenance.

"That's all they are -- another tax done in another way," shesaid.

Mr. Skally, who owns seven apartment buildings across the city --four of them on corner lots -- sent the city several suggestionsfor ways to make assessments more equitable.

He would like charges to be based on a building's total squarefootage, rather than the number of feet on the property that frontthe street. But after six years of fighting with the city overassessments, he is not banking on lower costs next year.

STONEMOR PARTNERS: Jan. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set-------------------------------------------------------------The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., a national shareholder rights firm, onNov. 21 announced that a class action has been commenced in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities that purchasedStoneMor Partners L.P. ("StoneMor" or the "Company") common unitsbetween January 19, 2012 and October 27, 2016, inclusive (the"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than January 20,2017. If you wish to discuss this action orhave any questions concerning this notice or your rights orinterests, please contact either Brett D. Stecker or James M.Ficaro of The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. at (610) 225-2677, or via e-mail at bds@weiserlawfirm.com and jmf@weiserlawfirm, respectively.Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

StoneMor is the second largest owner and operator of cemeteriesand funeral homes in the United States.

The complaint charges StoneMor and certain of its current andformer officers and directors with violations of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934. Specifically, according to the Complaint,StoneMor made false and misleading statements and/or failed todisclose during the Class Period: (1) that the Company's reportednon-GAAP financial metrics were materially misleading andconcealed the truth about the Company's actual financialcondition; and (2) that the primary purpose of the Company'sregular debt and equity offerings were to pay distributions tounitholders rather than to pay down indebtedness under theCompany's revolving credit facility as publicly stated. As aresult, StoneMor's statements about its business, operations, andprospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonablebasis at all relevant times.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofStoneMor common units during the Class Period. Plaintiff isrepresented by the Weiser Firm which has extensive experience inprosecuting investor class actions including actions involvingfinancial fraud.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January20, 2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff ofthe class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that actson behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Inorder to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determinethat the class member's claim is typical of the claims of otherclass members, and that the class member will adequately representthe class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class membersmay together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share inany recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether ornot to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain The Weiser LawFirm, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as yourcounsel in this action.

The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. -- http://www.weiserlawfirm.com-- is a national shareholder litigation firm. The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.is devoted to protecting the interests of individual andinstitutional investors in shareholder actions in state andfederal courts nationwide. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is also listed ascounsel on this matter.

TOYOTA: 225,000 Steel Vehicle Frames Expected to Be Replaced------------------------------------------------------------Richard Truett, writing for Automotive News, reports that as manyas 225,000 steel frames under Toyota Tacoma and Tundra pickups andSequoia SUVs may need to be replaced, says a lawyer who helpedsettle a class-action lawsuit against Toyota over the frames'potential for rusting.

The repair is an expensive, labor-intensive process that requiresnearly the complete disassembly of the vehicle.

The proposed legal settlement could cost Toyota as much as $3.4billion for the repairs, according to court documents.

Several time-lapse videos on youtube.com show the job requiring asmany as four technicians and two service bays. The repair cantake from almost two days to a week, depending on a dealer'sability to put more than one technician on the job.

About 1.5 million vehicles are covered under terms of the proposedsettlement, which includes 2005-10 Tacoma midsize pickups, 2007-08Tundra full-size pickups and 2005-08 Sequoia large SUVs. Vehiclesare covered up to 12 years from the day of sale.

The frames, which lack adequate rustproofing, were supplied byDana Holding Corp. of Maumee, Ohio. Photos of rust-damaged framesshow severe corrosion of the frame rails and the high-stress areawhere the rear suspension leaf springs mount to the frame.

If the frame is rusted to the point where its strength iscompromised -- especially near the rear suspension mounts --Toyota will pay for the dealer to install a replacement frame,according to the proposed settlement.

"The ultimate size of the settlement depends on a number offactors, including the valuation of the benefits offered under thesettlement. Plaintiffs' counsel will have to explain how they'rereaching their valuation numbers," Toyota said in a statement."More important to us is that the agreement will deliver thatvalue to our customers."

Toyota officials declined to answer specific questions about framereplacements, such as how long customers will have to wait, orwhether any of the body hardware, nuts, bolts and fasteners areincluded in the repair.

"Probably about 15 percent of the frames that get inspected willend up needing to be replaced," said Timothy Blood --tblood@bholaw.com -- co-counsel with Blood Hurst & O'Reardon inSan Diego, one of three law firms in two states that successfullysued Toyota. "There are a lot of steps to it. And it is labor-intensive," he said.

Replacing rusty frames will be costly for Toyota. The frames comein a variety of sizes and models, based on vehicle cab anddrivetrain configuration.

The Tacoma frame, for instance, has 11 versions, ranging in pricefrom $4,338 to $4,889. But the labor for the repair could pushthe total warranty bill per vehicle to $15,000 or more, accordingto a Toyota dealer who has been replacing frames for several yearsand asked not to be named.

Big job

Installing a new frame under a Tacoma, Tundra or Sequoia requiresthe body to be separated from the old frame, which is usually doneon a service bay lift. The pipes, wires, hoses and mechanicalconnections for the vehicle's brake, cooling, fuel and electricalsystems have to be disconnected.

Once the body is off the old frame, the engine, transmission, rearaxle and front and rear suspension components, along with the fueltank and exhaust system, must be removed from the old frame andinstalled on the new one. Excessive rust and worn parts cancomplicate this part of the job.

When these parts are installed on the new frame, the body is thenlowered onto it and the systems are reconnected and refilled. Allfour wheels need to be aligned and all systems checked andinspected before the repair is finished.

Shop work

The first step is an inspection. A technician at a northeasternToyota store, who said he was not authorized to speak for thedealership and asked to remain anonymous, estimated that seven of10 trucks that have come in for inspection need a framereplacement.

He said the store's bills to Toyota for the repair average around$15,000, but the total repair price is often higher. Somecustomers have been paying out of pocket for new shocks, brakesand other wear items.

Before the proposed settlement, he said, the store was replacingan average of three frames a week.

Toyota would not comment on specifics of the settlement, which isbeing finalized. But Mr. Blood said Toyota has agreed to offerloaner vehicles to customers whose vehicles need new frames. Healso said the proposed settlement covers Toyota owners nationwideand in U.S. territories.

"That's important because people move," Mr. Blood said. "Andtheir vehicle might still rust out. If it needs a frame, it willbe replaced, no matter where they are."

TREEHOUSE FOODS: January 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set--------------------------------------------------------------Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm disclosed that a classaction lawsuit against TreeHouse Foods, Inc. ("TreeHouse" or the"Company") (THS) concerning possible violations of federalsecurities laws between February 1, 2016 and November 2, 2016inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased orotherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contactthe firm in advance of the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motiondeadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call BrianLundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail himat brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class iscertified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. Youmay also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, TreeHouse made false and/or misleadingstatements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's privatelabel business and acquisition strategy were underperforming; thatCompany overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and that as aresult of the above, TreeHouse's statements about its business,operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lackeda reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angelesdedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.

UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Watchdog Says Sanctions Must Stand----------------------------------------------------------------Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that aWashington nonprofit that represents class members against unfairclass-action cases told the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thatsanctions should stand against five plaintiffs' attorneys who werefound to have abused the court system in their manipulation of acontroversial case.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class ActionFairness filed a 51-page friend of the court brief that said ChiefU.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III was correct when heissued the sanctions in August against the attorneys, includingJohn Goodson of Texarkana, who is the husband of a state SupremeCourt justice, because Holmes found that they acted in bad faith.

Judge Holmes found seven other plaintiffs' attorneys and threedefense attorneys involved in the class-action case had abused thecourt system. The attorneys said they didn't do anything wrongand have appealed Judge Holmes' finding.

The case at the center of the matter was Adams v. United ServicesAutomobile Association, which concerned the method used tocalculate homeowners' insurance claims. It was pending in Holmes'court for 17 months until both sides agreed to dismiss it in June2015.

The case was refiled the next day, with a class-action settlementagreement attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where thesettlement was approved without any questions by Circuit JudgeJerry Ryan.

The plaintiffs' attorneys' quickly received $1.85 million forcosts and attorneys' fees. Only 4 percent of the class filed aclaim, which resulted in payments to the class members of lessthan $300,000, the Center of Class Action Fairness said.

Judge Holmes, who didn't find out about the refiling of the caseuntil he read about it in a December 2015 edition of ArkansasBusiness, called the maneuver improper "forum shopping" and saidhe wouldn't have approved the settlement.

Ted Frank, director of the CEI's Center for Class Action Fairness,said in the brief filed that Judge Holmes' order should beaffirmed.

The attorneys' "request for carte blanche to engage in secretforum-shopping that prejudices absent class members runs afoul ofclass counsel's and courts' fiduciary duties to those classmembers," he said in the 51-page brief. "The fact of the matteris that the parties still unapologetically defend their right tosilently forum-shop away from a judge that would scrutinize theirsettlement and safeguard absent class members' interests."

US COACHWAYS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $49.9 Million---------------------------------------------------------Kathryn Rattigan, Esq. -- krattigan@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, inan article for JDSupra, reports that recently, an Illinois federaljudge approved a $49.9 million settlement between US Coachways, anational charter bus and bus rental company, and a class ofplaintiffs, represented by lead plaintiff James Bull for TelephoneConsumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations. The class actionalleged that US Coachways sent a "staggering" amount of textmessages to 85,000 individual consumers' cell phones in violationof the TCPA beginning back in 2011. The class alleged that USCoachways texted individuals who had booked trips in the past orthose who simply requested a quote from them -- over 391,459 textmessages according to the court.

Because US Coachways is unable to satisfy the $49.9 millionjudgment itself, it has turned to its insurer to help pay thecost. US Coachways will assign its rights against its insurer andcontribute $50,000 itself.

This is another example of the importance of compliance with theTCPA's strict requirements, and the importance of obtaining andtracking consent before your business sends a marketing textmessage using autodialing technologies.

VCA INC: Graham Appeals Order Denying Class Certification---------------------------------------------------------Tony M. Graham appeals a court ruling denying motion for classcertification and granting Defendants' summary judgment motion,VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016.

"On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods andservices from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported classaction lawsuit against us in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCAAntech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit sought toassert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other individuals whopurchased similar goods and services from our animal hospitals andalleged, among other allegations, that we improperly charged suchindividuals for 'biohazard waste management' in connection withthe services performed. The lawsuit sought compensatory andpunitive damages in unspecified amounts, and other relief,including attorneys' fees and costs. VCA successfully had thevenue transferred to the Southern District of California."

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Feb. 12,2016. In late July 2016, VCA had filed a Summary Judgment Motion.The Honorable Christina Snyder issued her decision on Sept. 12,2016, denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification andgranting Defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff in thisaction filed an appeal of this judgment in October 2016.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend thisaction.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based inLos Angeles, California. The Company is an animal healthcarecompany with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.

VCA INC: Discovery Proceeding in "Bradsbery" Class Action Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit commenced by La KimbaBradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Qfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On July 16, 2014, two additional formerveterinary assistants filed a purported class action lawsuitagainst us in the Superior Court of the State of California forthe County of Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and CheriBrakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et al. The lawsuit seeks toassert claims on behalf of current and former veterinaryassistants, kennel assistants, and client service representativesemployed by us in California, and alleges, among otherallegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtimewages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,improperly failed to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed toreimburse for certain business-related expenses, and engaged inunfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutorypenalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs.In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La KimbaBradsbery lawsuit, which stay remains in place."

On or about August 23, 2016, the Court lifted the stay anddiscovery is proceeding.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against theBradsbery action. At this time, the Company is unable to estimatethe reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do notbelieve losses, if any, would have a material effect on theCompany's results of operations or financial position taken as awhole.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based inLos Angeles, California. The Company is an animal healthcarecompany with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.

VCA INC: "Lopez" Suit Now Closed After Accord Went Into Effect--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit filed by Carlos Lopez is now closed afterthe parties' settlement went into effect, according to VCA Inc.'sForm 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

The Company said: "On July 12, 2013, an individual who providedcourier services with respect to our laboratory clients inCalifornia filed a purported class action lawsuit against us inthe Superior Court of the State of California for the County ofSanta Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. LogisticsDelivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al.Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit,is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courierservices in California. The lawsuit sought to assert claims onbehalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics DeliverySolutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, amongother allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and AntechDiagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independentcontractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, andimproperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuitsought damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, includingattorneys' fees and costs. The parties agreed to settle theaction, on a class-wide basis, for an amount not to exceed$1,250,000. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, has agreed to payhalf of the claim. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2016, we haveaccrued the remaining fifty percent. The settlement is not anadmission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by any of thedefendants named in the complaint. Antech Diagnostics andLogistics Delivery Solutions agreed to the settlement to eliminatethe uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated withprotracted litigation."

"The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement onNovember 30, 2015 and issued an order granting final approval ofthe settlement on March 25, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the Courtentered the Judgment approving the settlement and the judgmentwent into effect on June 1, 2016. The final settlement amount wasapproximately $900,000, half of which was paid by DSA pursuant toour agreement."

Payments to class members were made in early July 2016 and thismatter is now closed.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based inLos Angeles, California. The Company is an animal healthcarecompany with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.

VCA INC: Representative Claims Under PAGA Pursued in "Duran" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Jorge Duran is pursuing his representative claims under thePrivate Attorneys General Act, according to VCA Inc.'s Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant at one of theCompany's animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuitagainst us in the Superior Court of the State of California forthe County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs. VCA AnimalHospitals, Inc., et al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims onbehalf of current and former veterinary assistants employed by theCompany in California, and alleges, among other allegations, thatthe Company improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages,improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, andengaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages,statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' feesand costs.

On May 7, 2014, the Company obtained partial summary judgment,dismissing four of eight claims of the complaint, including theclaims for failure to pay regular and overtime wages. On Jan. 9,2014, Plaintiff Duran moved to certify a meal period premiumclass, a rest period premium class and a class under California'sBusiness and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., On June 24,2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff is nowpursuing his representative claims under the seventh cause ofaction (Private Attorneys General Act or PAGA).

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defendagainst the remaining claim in this action. At this time, theCompany is unable to estimate the reasonable possible loss orrange of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, wouldhave a material effect on the Company's results of operations orfinancial position taken as a whole.

VCA Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1986 and is based inLos Angeles, California. The Company is an animal healthcarecompany with these four operating segments: animal hospitals,veterinary diagnostic laboratories, veterinary medical technology,and Camp Bow Wow Franchising, Inc. (f/k/a D.O.G. Enterprises, LLC.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Soy-Based Insulation Wire Coating-------------------------------------------------------------JENNY FICHMANN, On Behalf of Herself And All Others SimilarlySituated, the Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06736-CRB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2016),seeks to recover money damages and legal and equitable relief onbehalf of themselves and the class members from Defendant forbreach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of thefederal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and for violations ofCalifornia consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and allother similarly situated California owners and lessees of 2012-2016 model year Audi vehicles (Class Vehicles).

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles are defective andnot of merchantable quality in that their electrical wiring iscoated with soy-based insulation -- a type of insulation thatVolkswagen implemented relatively recently that is purportedlymore environmentally friendly and less expensive than traditionalelectrical insulation. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, and themembers of the class she seeks to represent, a real and continuousunintended and undesired consequence of this soy-based insulationmaterial is that it attracts rodents and other animals that aredrawn by the soy content of the insulation. These animals,attracted to the soy-based insulation, proceed to chew through theinsulation and electrical wires that the insulation coats. Ownersof the Class Vehicles, like Plaintiff, are then left with disabledor otherwise improperly functioning vehicles.

Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies ofGermany.

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Awaits Order on Bid to Appeal in Youngers Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., awaits ruling on the Defendants'motion to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint (Mark Youngersv. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., et al.) alleging violationsof certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed inthe United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia (the "District Court") by an individual who alleges heis a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerlysubadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSectorFunds. The complaint alleges claims against the Company, certainof the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain otherparties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed onbehalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Thecomplaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendantsdisseminated materially false and misleading statements andconcealed or omitted material facts necessary to make thestatements made not misleading. On June 7, 2015, a group of threeindividuals, including the original plaintiff, filed a motion tobe appointed lead plaintiff and on July 27, 2015, the DistrictCourt appointed movants as lead plaintiff.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended ClassAction Complaint which, among other things, added a derivativeclaim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of VirtusOpportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, the District Courtentered an order transferring the action to the Southern Districtof New York (the "Court").

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second AmendedComplaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Companyand affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016. On July 1, 2016,the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, anddenying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed fourcauses of action entirely and a fifth cause of action with respectto a portion of the Class Period. The Court also dismissed allclaims against ten defendants named in the Complaint. The Courtheld that the Plaintiffs may pursue certain securities claimsunder Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 12of the Securities Act of 1933. The Answer to the Second AmendedComplaint was filed on August 5, 2016.

A Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the claim under Section 12of the Securities Act was filed on September 15, 2016.

The defendants filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appealof the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit on August 26, 2016. Oral argument on the motion was heldon October 7, 2016.

The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact andintends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that thereis not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimablerelated to this claim.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint allegingviolations of certain provisions of the federal securities lawswas filed by an individual shareholder against the Company andcertain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, includingthe original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed leadplaintiff and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed ArkansasTeachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015,plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the"Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint,which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of theCompany's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015(the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that,during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materiallyfalse and misleading statements and concealed material adversefacts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-SquaredInvestments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint allegesclaims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5. Theplaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. A motion todismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of theCompany and the other defendants on October 21, 2015.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order grantingin part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowingPlaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the ExchangeAct and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. Theremaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint wasfiled on August 5, 2016.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends todefend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not amaterial loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related tothis claim.

Wal-Mart involved class certification of some 1.5 million currentand former female employees, alleging that their employer, Wal-Mart, discriminated against them based on sex by denying themequal pay and promotions, in violation of Title VII of the CivilRights Act of 1964, as amended, Title 42 United States Codesection 2000e-1 et seq.

The Supreme Court reversed class certification because theplaintiffs did not offer significant proof that Wal-Mart operatedunder a general policy of discrimination. The Supreme Court alsodisapproved of the method by which the plaintiffs planned toestablish liability and damages. The Supreme Court found that themethod, which it termed "Trial by Formula," would prevent Wal-Martfrom litigating its statutory defenses to individual claims.

Relying on Wal-Mart, Wackenhut moved for decertification. Thetrial court granted the motion, stating two main bases for itsruling: (1) that individualized issues predominated; and (2) thatthere was no way to conduct a manageable trial of plaintiffs'claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, contending that decertification was notwarranted by a change in circumstances or case law and that thecourt used improper criteria in granting the motion fordecertification.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, found thatthe trial court's reliance on Wal-Mart to support decertificationfor each of the plaintiffs' claims overextended holdings in thatcase.

The trial court determined that Wal-Mart disapproved of thestatistical sampling method, even though statistical sampling hadbeen introduced only in relation to one of the plaintiffs' threeclaims, the meal period claim.

The appellate court, however, found that Wal-Mart does notprohibit the broad use of statistical sampling in class actionlawsuits, but that the decision whether to allow statisticalevidence ultimately is within the discretion of the trial court.

The trial court also found that individualized inquiries werenecessary because, pursuant to Wal-Mart, Wackenhut was entitled todefend by proving that, even if plaintiffs presented evidence thatit had a general policy of not providing valid meal or restbreaks, in practice some employees were afforded an off-duty mealor rest break.

Again, the appellate court found that this rationale misappliesWal-Mart. In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffsfailed to present evidence establishing the existence of a commonpolicy of discrimination. In the Lubin case, when it originallycertified the class, the trial court found that plaintiffs hadpresented sufficient evidence that Wackenhut had policies andpractices that violated wage and hour laws. Because plaintiffsmet their burden of establishing a common policy, the appellatecourt held that whether an individual was permitted to take avalid meal or rest break on any given day is a question ofdamages.

The appellate court also pointed out that the distinctive natureof Title VII liability also distinguishes Wal-Mart from the factsof the case. The court explained that individualized inquirieswere necessary in Wal-Mart because under Title VII, once theplaintiff has made a prima facie showing of a discriminatoryaction, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that theadverse employment action was made for a nondiscriminatoryemployment reason. A defendant's right to prove that an adverseemployment action as to a specific employee was taken for anondiscriminatory reason, will necessarily have to beindividualized.

In contrast, the appellate court found that the wage ordergoverning meal and rest breaks at issue in the Lubin case does nothave the same individualized burden-shifting mechanism as TitleVII. The court held that if the plaintiffs have made a showingthat Wackenhut had a policy or practice that violated Californiawage and hour laws, any defense asserted by Wackenhut can also bepresented on a classwide basis.

The trial court's order was thus reversed, and the case wasremanded as to off-duty meal break, rest break, and wage statementissues.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 21, 2016 ruling isavailable at https://is.gd/RC3ukf from Leagle.com.

According to the complaint, specifically, since at least 2010, theDefendants have engaged in a practice of self-dealing andimprudent investing of Plan assets by funneling billions ofdollars of those assets into Wells Fargo's own proprietary funds.Specifically, the Benefit Committee, with the knowledge andparticipation of Wells Fargo, the HR Committee, and the otherfiduciary Defendants, selected as investments a class of mutualfunds -- known as target date funds -- and designed and maintaineda system to maximize the amount of Plan assets invested into thosefunds. Defendants did so by, among other things, (1) defaultingcertain participant contributions into the Wells Fargo target datefunds, and (2) encouraging participants to purchase the fundsthrough an "easy" and "quick" enrollment feature, whereparticipants would, with a check of a box, dedicate all theirfuture contributions into the Wells Fargo target date funds. TheWells Fargo target date funds cost on average over 2.5 times morethan comparable target date funds while, at the same time,substantially and consistently underperforming those comparablefunds. The substantial cost inflation was due, in part, to thefact that, unlike the comparable funds, Wells Fargo double chargedfor its target date funds -- charging fees for both (1) managingthe target date funds themselves, and (2) managing the index fundsunderlying the target date funds. The intentional funneling ofparticipants into the target date funds not only generatedsubstantial revenues for Wells Fargo, but, with Plan assetsconstituting more than one quarter of total assets in the funds,it provided critical seed money that kept the funds afloat byboosting market share. Thus, Defendants have, among other things,violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and/orknowingly participated in such breaches to the detriment of thePlan.

The 401(k) plan is a type of employee retirement plan in whichemployees invest a percentage of their earnings on a pre-taxbasis.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financialservices holding company headquartered in San Francisco,California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.

The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendants engaged in a patternor practice of unlawful conduct which resulted in the violation oftheir rights under the FLSA. The Defendants allegedly violated theFLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA CollectivePlaintiffs the legally mandated hourly overtime premium for hoursworked over 40 in a workweek when Plaintiffs often worked manyhours in excess of 40 hours.

The Defendants own and operate a network of fried chicken anddaiquiri shops throughout New Orleans under the trade nameWillie's Chicken Shack.

WINDSTREAM SERVICES: "Doppelt" Suit Remains Pending in Maryland---------------------------------------------------------------The shareholder lawsuit filed in Delaware against WindstreamServices LLC and others remains pending, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a ShareholderClass Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board ofDirectors. This complaint was accompanied by a motion for apreliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 -- the day before aspecial meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reversestock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") --denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoningthat much of the information sought by plaintiff had beendisclosed in public filings available on the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission's website, the WindstreamHoldings' board of directors was in no way conflicted, and whileapproval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approvalwas not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putativeWindstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class ActionComplaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company andits Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking torescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in partdefendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Courtdismissed Windstream, and plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin-off, but otherwise denied the motion.

Windstream Services, LLC, is a subsidiary of Windstream Holdings,Inc., a publicly traded holding company. Windstream Servicesprovides advanced network communications and technology solutionsfor consumers, businesses, enterprise organizations and wholesalecustomers across the United States. The Company offers bundledservices, including broadband, security solutions, voice anddigital television to consumers.

YAHOO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Personal Data Breach------------------------------------------------------Tina Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,the Plaintiff, v. Yahoo Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-06733 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks an order requiring Yahooto remedy the harm caused by its misconduct, includingcompensation to Plaintiff and Class members for resulting accountfraud and for all reasonably necessary measures Plaintiff andClass members have had to take in order to identify and safeguardthe accounts put at risk by Yahoo's grossly negligent security.

On September 22, 2016, Yahoo announced that a "recentinvestigation" showed that "state-sponsored" hackers accessed itsnetwork in late 2014 and stole the personal data on over 500million users. The stolen information includes users' names, emailaddresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, scrambled passwords,and in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security questions andanswers used to verify an accountholder's identity (PersonalInformation). While Yahoo says the stolen passwords wereencrypted, computer-security experts have opined that a hackercould unscramble the passwords using commonly available "cracking"software. Moreover, once a password is "cracked", hackers canbreak into Yahoo Mail accounts and if the password happened to bethe same on other banking, retail or financial website accounts,hackers could gain access to those accounts as well.

Due to Defendant's failure to implement and maintain basic datasecurity protocols in accordance with industry standards, andcontrary to Yahoo's representations, its users' PersonalInformation is now in the hands of criminals and/or enemies of theUnites States, subjecting Plaintiff and the Class to the seriousrisk of identity theft in a wide variety of forms.

Yahoo was so grossly negligent in securing its users' PersonalInformation. Initially, Yahoo claimed that it did not evendiscover the incident until the summer of 2016. However, in arecent filing with the Security Exchange Commission, Yahoorevealed that it knew in 2014 that it had been hacked.

Yahoo offers online services to millions people worldwide,including Yahoo! Mail, a free email service (with premiumoptions). Yahoo! Mail was launched in 1997, and is one of theoldest and largest web-based email services available. Among otherthings, Yahoo! Mail includes email, calendar, contacts, notetaking, and Yahoo Messenger integration. Yahoo reportedly has over500 million Yahoo Mail users, including 81 million in the UnitedStates alone.

At a field hearing in Salt Lake City, the Consumer FinancialProtection Bureau launched an inquiry into the challengesconsumers might face when using websites such as Mint.com, whichaggregate details about consumers' finances. The agency said itwants to know what consumers are told about how their data isshared and stored. Officials also want to know if consumers havehad issues with their banks slowing down or blocking access totheir data.

"We are concerned that some financial institutions have threatenedto cut off the flow of information to some websites and mobileapplications," CFPB director Richard Cordray said in preparedremarks. "We also hear of financial institutions that makeconsumers jump through so many hoops to access or authorize accessto their own financial records that they are discouraged from eventrying."

The call for more information is a sign the agency is moving aheadwith potential rules regulating how banks must store, protect andshare consumers' financial data, despite the major questions thathave been raised about its future since the election. With Mr.Cordray's term not up until 2018, the agency is continuing totackle the items on its regulatory agenda -- even though it's notclear how those efforts may fare under the new presidentialadministration.

The CFPB and the Dodd-Frank legislation that created the agencyhave been marked as a target by President-elect Donald Trump.Trump has not said specifically what changes he would like to maketo the consumer protection agency, but a website from histransition team says he wants to "dismantle" the Dodd-Frank Act.In the past several months, Republicans have proposed makingsignificant changes to the way the independent agency is run orfunded, including a proposal to replace the director's slot with afive-member bipartisan commission.

Since Election Day, many government agencies have acceleratedtheir timelines for regulations out of concern over how theiroffices might fare under the new administration. For instance,the Interior Department finalized a rule on Nov. 15 that affectsthe oil and gas industry.

But other groups are slowing down their agendas. The head of theSecurities and Exchange Commission, Mary Jo White, announced thatshe is stepping down two years before the end of her term. Andthe Federal Communications Commission has signaled that it wouldnot be rolling out more major regulations this year.

Research is typically the first step in the CFPB's rule-makingprocess, which also usually involves releasing an outline of whatthose potential rules might look like, before regulation isofficially proposed.

The agency has been busy this year, proposing rules for paydaylenders and regulations that would ban financial companies fromusing arbitration clauses to keep customers out of class-actionlawsuits. It's unclear how these proposed rules, which wouldprobably not be finalized until next year, will fare with aRepublican in the White House and under a Republican-controlledCongress.

With its latest inquiry, the CFPB is moving to ensure thatconsumers can access details about their recent purchases,deposits and account balances when using third-party apps orwebsites that can help them budget or set other financial goals.Over the past several years, new Fintech start-ups have popped upto help consumers keep track of their bills, track spendingpatterns and meet other financial goals. At the field hearing,which was announced before the election, Mr. Cordray said theagency also wants to make sure the companies are storinginformation securely.

* Circuit Split Over Arbitration Class Action Waiver Widens-----------------------------------------------------------Michael S. Arnold, Esq. -- MArnold@mintz.com -- and BrieKluytenaar, Esq. -- BKluytenaar@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin,Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for TheNational Law Review, report that with the 9th Circuit's latesummer anti-class action waiver decision, the circuit splitwidened over the issue of whether employers can require employees,through an arbitration agreement, to waive their rights to bringclass or collective actions against their employer. This issuewill almost certainly reach the Supreme Court given the deepeningdivide and the Court's previous apparent interest in addressingissues surrounding class action waivers and arbitrationagreements.

The IssueThere are two conflicting statutes in play here: The FederalArbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act.

The FAA promotes and protects the enforceability of arbitrationagreements, and generally, it requires courts to enforcearbitration agreements unless another federal statute specificallyoverrides it or enforcement would impinge upon a "substantiveright" afforded to an individual under that statute.

The NLRA provides employees with a substantive right to engage inconcerted activity, i.e. to act collectively with respect to theirwages and other terms and conditions of their employment.

The question many of the Circuit Courts of Appeals haveconfronted, and the Supreme Court will hopefully soon confront, iswhether the right to pursue relief in court collectively is theequivalent of engaging in protected "concerted activity" -- asubstantive and therefore non-waivable right.

Conflicting Circuit Court HoldingsIn August 2016, the 9th Circuit in Morris v. Ernst & Young becamethe second circuit to answer that question in the affirmative.That decision mostly mirrored the 7th Circuit's May 2016 decisionin Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, concluding that class actionwaivers in employer-imposed arbitration agreements violate theNLRA. There, the 7th Circuit found that there is nothing quite so"concerted" as a class action litigation, where employees bandtogether to collectively assert a legal challenge to a workplacepractice. The 9th Circuit found the same, stating: "thisrestriction is the 'very antithesis' of [the NLRA's] substantiveright to pursue concerted work-related legal claims."

In contrast to the positions taken by the 7th and 9th Circuits,the 2nd, 5th and 8th Circuits have all previously concluded thatsuch waivers do not violate the NLRA.

Litigants in many of these cases have asked the Supreme Court toresolve the issue and updates will be forthcoming as newdevelopments emerge on that front.

In the meantime, in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling, theNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) adheres to a policy of"nonacquiescence," meaning it will continue to decide cases basedon its analysis and interpretation of the law notwithstanding therejection of its position by certain of the circuit courts ofappeals.

As a result, dozens of cases involving this issue are pending inthe federal appellate courts on appeal from rulings of the NLRBand employers have been left scrambling to determine whether toutilize these agreements in certain parts of the country.

TakeawaysAll employers should pay close attention to this issue as itdoesn't merely impact unionized workforces. In Morris, employeeshad attempted to bring a collective/class action under the FairLabor Standards Act and California labor laws claiming unpaidovertime. They argued that they shouldn't be forced to arbitratetheir claims individually because, in part, their arbitrationagreements separately violated the NLRA -- a violation that hadnothing to do with their claims for unpaid wages.

At the same time, employers should realize the limits of thesedecisions. First, the NLRA does not cover all employees.Managers and supervisors cannot seek its protections (in mostcases), and therefore, cannot use it to invalidate their classaction waivers (although query whether that remains the case whenthe employee is challenging his or her status as an exemptmanager/supervisor). Second, if the arbitration provisionprovides the employee with the ability to opt-out or it permitsthem to pursue collective/class arbitration (in lieu oflitigation), they will likely be unable to successively challengeit.

The law on this question is currently in flux, but the SupremeCourt has repeatedly held that arbitration is a matter of contractand that the terms of arbitration agreements will be strictlyenforced. In light of this and the fact that we should assume aconservative-leaning judge will fill the current vacancy on theSupreme Court, it is not unreasonable to conclude that anotherFAA-favorable decision will be headed our way. Regardless of theoutcome, we hope to have a decision soon so that the parties tothese agreements can act with greater certainty. In the meantime,employers operating in the 7th and 9th circuits should considerwhether and how they want to revise their arbitration agreementswhile this issue remains outstanding.

* Obama Admin. Seeks to Curb Insurance Mandatory Arbitration------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Lambert, writing for Reuters, reports that the Obamaadministration is pressing U.S. states to curb insurers' use offine print in contracts that bars unsatisfied customers fromsuing, taking the latest step against "mandatory arbitrationclauses" in an insurance report released by the TreasuryDepartment on Nov. 21.

The federal government does not regulate insurance companies orproducts. Each state has its own oversight process. But in recentyears, the U.S. government has dipped its toe into regulating theindustry, most notably by identifying some insurers as "too big tofail," a label triggering additional capital requirements.

In its report, the Treasury Department says states should"consider developing appropriate constraints on mandatoryarbitration clauses in insurance contracts."

"State policymakers and insurance regulators should assess whetherthe current lack of uniformity in state laws and regulationsraises questions about whether state consumer protections forinsurance consumers should better align with those afforded to theconsumers of other financial products and services," it also said.

The clauses are recent additions to many contracts, includingthose for cellphones and nursing homes. In order to open accounts,customers must agree that they will take any future dispute to anindependent arbitrator, often selected by the company, instead ofjoining a class-action lawsuit.

Critics of arbitration say that it is often conducted in secret,denying customers due process or a legal precedent, and thatarbitrators have cause to rule in the company's favor. Supporterssay it is quicker than lawsuits and more of the money in asettlement goes directly to a customer than in class-actionlawsuits, where people band together to sue.

In May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created in 2010,proposed a rule that would only allow optional arbitration clausesin contracts in sectors the agency oversees. More recently, theU.S. Department of Education finalized rules barring the clausesin contracts for for-profit colleges.

Meanwhile, customers hoping to sue Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) overthe opening of bogus accounts in their names have found that thefine print meant they agreed to take claims to an arbitratorinstead of a courtroom.

* Netherlands to Introduce Monetary Damages Collective Action-------------------------------------------------------------Chr. Frank (Frank) Kroes, Esq. -- FRANK.KROES@BAKERMCKENZIE.COM -- of Baker & McKenzie, in an article for Lexology, reports thatThe Netherlands will get a collective action for monetary damages,not dissimilar to a US-style class action. The government placeda bill to that effect before Parliament on November 15, 2016.However, the Netherlands are keen to avoid what is widely seen, atleast in this country, as the downside of class action litigation:blackmail settlements, because of the reputational risk andprohibitive cost of defense that a class action involves, andplaintiff's lawyers receiving the bulk of the proceeds, whereaslittle money goes to the aggrieved parties.

Therefore, the collective action may only be brought by a claimfoundation (or association) that complies with stringent criteria.The claim foundation must be sufficiently representative, takinginto account the support it has from aggrieved parties and theamount of claims that it represents. In addition, it must have asupervisory body, a mechanism to insure the involvement of theaggrieved parties that it represents, sufficient means to bear thecost of litigation, a website, open for inspection by the public,that provides relevant information and sufficient experience andexpertise in relation to the claims that it brings.

In addition, the directors that were involved in the incorporationof the claim foundation and their successors may not pursue aprofit through the claim foundation.

The jurisdiction of the Dutch courts in collective actions is nodifferent from their jurisdiction in other cases. However, thegovernment wants to prevent an indue influx of cases in collectiveactions that have insufficient nexus with the Netherlands. Forthat reason, there will be a 'scope rule' in addition to the ruleson jurisdiction. The scope rule provides that a class action isinadmissible if the claims have insufficient nexus with theNetherlands.

Sufficient nexus with the Netherlands exists if the majority ofthe aggrieved parties to whose protection the claims are broughthave their residence in the Netherlands, the defendant has itsdomicile in the Netherlands or the event or events that gave riseto the claims occurred in the Netherlands.

The courts in Amsterdam will have exclusive jurisdiction (ininternational cases, provided that the Dutch courts haveinternational jurisdiction). However, they may refer the case toanother court if there is a strong connection with the region ofthat court. An example of such a strong connection are damagescaused by earthquakes as a result of the extraction of natural gasin Groningen, a province in the north of the Netherlands.

Within two days of filing a collective action, the claimfoundation must register the collective action with a publicregister. This will enable other claim foundations to file acollective action as well. To that end, there will be asuspension of three to six months after the filing of the firstcollective action. If more than one collective action is filed inrelation to the same event or events, the court will elect a leadplaintiff from the claim foundations that made a filing. Thissystem should prevent a race to the court house. The court shouldelect the most suitable claim foundation, taking into account thenumber of aggrieved parties that it represents, their financialinterests and the efforts that the claim foundation made inrelation to the claim and its previous experience. The leadplaintiff will represent all aggrieved parties within the class,but the other claim foundations remain parties to proceedings aswell. They may, however, only make filings to the extent that thecourt allows it.

Within a period set by the court, aggrieved parties have theopportunity to opt out. This period must be at least one monthafter appointment of the lead plaintiff. Aggrieved parties thatfail to opt out will be bound by the judgment in the collectiveaction.

After appointment of the lead plaintiff, the court will set a termin which the parties may attempt to reach a settlement. If asettlement is reached, it must be submitted to the court forapproval. If the court approved the settlement, it binds all theaggrieved parties in the class that did not opt-out. There willbe no second opportunity for an opt-out at this stage.

If no settlement is reached, the collective action will proceed.The court may order the parties to submit a proposal for claimssettlement. The court may use these proposals to settle theclaims, but it is not bound by the proposals. The court shouldfix the damages in the most appropriate fashion. This may includedamage scheduling, that is: defining categories of aggrievedparties and the damages that the members of each category willreceive. Subsequently, the class must be notified of the court'sjudgment in the most appropriate fashion. This notice should makeclear how aggrieved parties may get payment of the compensation towhich they are entitled pursuant to the judgment.

Parliament will read the bill within the next months. Whether theSecond Chamber of Parliament will be able to complete its readingbefore the elections in March 2017 remains to be seen. If thebill becomes law, the collective action for monetary damages islikely to become a potent instrument for the settlement of massclaims. It will co-exist with the collective settlement procedurepursuant to the Act on the collective settlement of mass claims(Wcam). The latter procedure applies to settlements that havebeen made voluntarily before the procedure starts.

* Social Networks May Impact Class Action Notice Methods--------------------------------------------------------James Sherer, Esq. -- jsherer@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler,in an article for Lexology, reports that the resources from whichpeople obtain, and choose to obtain, information have changeddramatically. A recent and highly publicized discussion of howinformation is exchanged might be the so-called filter bubble thatmany social media users experience. This bubble has reportedlycaused "autonomous decision-making," which hypothesizes thatpeople pay attention to only those sources of information withwhich they agree and that reinforce their beliefs. These theoriesare seemingly supported by data regarding how U.S. adults utilizeservices like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Reddit, and howthese and other social media sites are now among the primarysources of news and other information for U.S. adults.

The way people receive and believe information matters in theclass action context. Judges are instructed that notices musteffectively reach and come to the attention of the class -- thatis, command the attention of the intended recipients. The ways inwhich notice may be given are codified in Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 23(c)(2)(B), which provides that "[f]or any classcertified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to classmembers the best notice that is practicable under thecircumstances, including individual notice to all members who canbe identified through reasonable effort."

The "best" notice traditionally is first-class mail. Eisen v.Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). Since Eisen, however,lower courts were still free to examine other methods for notice.One court found that notice under Rule 23 was sufficient when oneof the methods of sharing information was a display on a "Facebookpage, which delivered individual e-mail notifications" to Facebook"fans" of its posts. Kelly v. Phiten USA, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 564,569 (S.D. Iowa 2011). Another deemed a targeted Facebookpublication that "linked to the settlement website" sufficientnotice. Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., 2013 WL 5781284, at *3(N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013). Courts have found Facebook to be a"generally acceptable" means of notice when included among a setof "myriad methods for providing notice, such as notice by U.S.mail, setting up a toll-free interactive voice response telephonenumber, and establishing a dedicated website." Baez v. LTDFinancial Services, L.P., 2016 WL 3189133 (M.D. Fla. June 8,2016).

But while these new methods of notice were being suggested andsometimes approved, other courts were careful not to mandate theuse of the internet and social media sites. One noted, forexample, that there "is no requirement under due process or thefederal rules requiring dissemination of [court pleadings, relatedrecords, or other] information over the Internet or the telephone.Rather, all that is required by F.R.C.P. 23 is that Notice beprovided to the class by the most practicable means available. .." Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222, 233 (S.D. Ill.2001). And others shied away from even allowing certain socialmedia postings due to concerns of prejudice and overreach byplaintiffs, as in Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, 2015 WL 2330079(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2015).

As courts grapple with the best way to approach new forms of mediain the context of the notice requirements, the Eisen first-classmail standard continues to loom over most proceedings. Recognizingthis, the Rule 23 Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on CivilRules recently suggested adding the following modification:"individual notice by the most appropriate means, including firstclass mail, electronic, or other means to all members."Commentators noted that this represents a powerful change that"enshrines both 'electronic' and 'other' means as acceptablemethods of certification notice within the language of Rule 23 --on equal footing with 'first class mail'" and the Eisen case law.

Research indicates that the majority (62 percent) of U.S. adultsget news on social media, and "[t]wo-thirds of Facebook users (66percent) get their news on the site -- a figure that amounts to 44percent of the general population." But practitioners expressconcern that electronic mail may deprive lower-income individualsof adequate notice in certain cases. Another consideration iswhether the wording that the subcommittee proposed could be readto prioritize electronic notice over more traditional forms ofnotice. Moreover, electronic notice may be ineffective due to the"filter bubble" discussed above.

Some commentators have noted just that, opining that adetermination of which "method of notice to use under the proposedamended rule will be a fact-specific inquiry for courts to answerwhile balancing considerations such as potential costs of notice,access of class members to various technologies and forms ofcommunications, and the level of attention class members arelikely [to] pay to the notice in any given form of transmittal."With that in mind, and knowledge of how these tools operate,courts and practitioners may, therefore, require a betterunderstanding of how people interact with social media to ensurethat the purpose of the notice -- rather than just the form -- isserved.

* Tobacco Settlement Fees Spread to Former Chicago Alderman-----------------------------------------------------------Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reports that a recentlyunsealed indictment in Chicago shows just how far legal fees fromthe $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998 spread. Federalauthorities have charged former Chicago alderman Edward "FastEddie" Vdolyak with trying to help another lawyer evade taxes onpotentially $65 million in fees the pair were promised despitehaving done no legal work on the deal.

The indictment against Mr. Vdolyak was unveiled as an addition tothe pending criminal case against Daniel P. Soso, a formerpoliceman and lawyer the feds charged with tax evasion last year.The government accuses Mr. Vdolyak of using relatives and otherintermediaries to hide his payments to Mr. Soso under a fee-splitting agreement with an unnamed Seattle attorney who wasidentified in earlier court proceedings as class-action lawyerSteven Berman.

Mr. Vdolyak's lawyer Michael Monico with Monico & Spevack said hisclient would plead not guilty at his arraignment tomorrow. Thegovernment failed to send notice to the proper entity for the backtaxes, Mr. Monico said, although Mr. Vdolyak nevertheless placed$300,000 in escrow against the IRS claim.

Regardless of how Mr. Vdolyak fares in court, the indictmentfurther taints a massive multistate agreement that rewarded thepolitical friends of the attorneys general who helped negotiateit. Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales went to jail in2003 for trying to steer some $400 million in fees to one of hisfriends, and state AGs elsewhere hired private law firms, many ofthem with strong ties to the Democratic Party, to pursue the casesseeking repayment of Medicare and Medicaid expenses for smoking-related diseases.

The resulting settlement was a financial win for Philip Morris,which got a price-sustaining cartel out of the deal under stateagreements to restrict new entrants from the cigarette industry.

It was also a bonanza for the private lawyers, who reaped morethan $1 billion in fees paid out over the next 25 years.Recipients included Berman's firm Hagens Berman, Motley Rice,Milberg Weiss (one of whose name partners later went to jail onunrelated securities charges), and Baltimore Orioles owner PeterAngelos. Here in my home state of Connecticut, then-AG, now-Sen.Richard Blumenthal authorized lucrative fee contracts with hisformer law firm Silver, Golub & Teitel as well as another firmwith ties to then-Gov. (and since jailed) John Rowland.

At least those law firms ostensibly performed legal work for thestate. In the Chicago indictment, the government says Mr. Berman,identified as "Individual B," secretly sent checks to lawyers whodid no such work. Berman didn't immediately return a request forcomment, but the Chicago Tribune reports the firm sent an e-mailedstatement saying Hagens Berman disclosed all fees with the state.

The Seattle firm was among the national counsel who signed acontract with Illinois in 1996 to act as "Special AssistantAttorneys General" to pursue the tobacco litigation for a 10% fee.Under that agreement 30% of the legal work was to go to localcounsel, but neither Mr. Vrdrolyak nor Mr. Soso were everidentified as such. They weren't authorized to perform legal workfor the state, the government says, "and did not perform any work"for Illinois on the tobacco case.

Despite this, "Individual B" sent a letter promising Messrs. Sosoand Vrdolyak 2.5% of any contingent fee his firm won. Messrs.Soso and Vrdolyak reached their own agreement in 1999 to split anyfees they received and also that year "Individual B" sent anotherletter promising them 10% of the national counsel's fees, orroughly $65 million if they got everything they were seeking. Asit turns out, the outside lawyers settled with the state in 2003for an additional $67.5 million in fees, and from 2000 to "atleast in or around August 2005," Mr. Vrdolyak paid his share ofthe fees to Mr. Soso.

The indictment doesn't say how much Mr. Vrdolyak ultimately gotfrom the settlement, or if he's still pulling cash from theagreement. But Mr. Soso was indicted last year for evading$800,000 in taxes -- indicating some $2 million in income at a 39%marginal tax rate -- and the Chicago Sun-Times reports that Mr.Vrdolyak's lawyer told a federal judge at a 2009 hearing that hisclient's fees were then running $30,000 a month.

Even if Hagens Berman is right about disclosing what it paidMessrs. Vrdolyak and Soso to the state, that information neverleaked out the public at large. This indictment shows howimportant it is that lawyers disclose every recipient of fees inbig class-action lawsuits and cases involving state and localgovernment. Securities class actions frequently feature state,union and municipal pension funds as lead plaintiffs and privateattorneys have a habit of spreading their fees to unusualrecipients including labor lawyers with no apparent securities-lawexperience and attorneys with connections to state government.Earlier this year an appeals court unsealed a lawsuit by a formerBernstein Litowitz attorney accusing his firm of funneling cash toa lawyer whose husband was on the staff of the Mississippiattorney general. (Bernstein Litowitz denied wrongroing andsettled with the lawyer.) Back in 2013, the same firm was accusedof sending $30,000 to a slush fund controlled by former DetroitMayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who was later convicted of shaking downcity contractors for bribes.

The tobacco settlement was the biggest payday of all for theselawyers who tend to write large campaign contribution checks tothe Democratic officials who hire them as outside counsel. Whilemany lawyers sold the stream of future fee income for an immediatepayment, others are probably putting their kids and grandchildrenthrough college on what is effectively a tax on smokers. If theclaims in this indictment is true, more than one politician got inon the action for reasons still unclear.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.